- 4 -
Petitioner filed an objection to respondent's motion arguing
that the motion should be denied on the grounds that: (1)
Respondent's motion was not timely filed; (2) the FPAA includes
an adjustment based on the penalty prescribed in section 6662(a);
and (3) section 6221 was amended in 1997 to clarify that
additions to tax and penalties are to be determined in
partnership-level proceedings.
This matter was called for hearing at the Court's motions
session in Washington, D.C. Counsel for respondent appeared at
the hearing and presented oral argument in support of the pending
motion. Counsel for petitioner filed a written statement
pursuant to Rule 50(c) in lieu of attendance at the hearing.
Discussion
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may
exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by
Congress. See Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985).
The Court's jurisdiction may be challenged by either party, or by
the Court sua sponte, at any stage of the proceedings. See Smith
v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 10, 13-14 (1991), and cases cited
therein. Consistent with this principle, we reject petitioner's
assertion that respondent's motion to dismiss and to strike
should be denied on the ground that it was not timely filed.
Petitioner further asserts that respondent's motion should
be denied because the FPAA included an adjustment “charging” the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011