- 21 -- 21 -
conjunction with subchapter B, establishes our subject matter
jurisdiction over the deficiency determined in the notice of
deficiency.
B. Maxwell Line of Cases
The majority disposes of this case without any critical
analysis of the Maxwell line of cases. The facts here are
different from those in Maxwell, and a consideration of that
difference exposes the error of our interpretation in Maxwell:
If we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction here, respondent will
suffer a consequence that we did not foresee in any of the
Maxwell line of cases.2 A reasonable interpretation of the
statute does not require that we dismiss this type of case for
lack of jurisdiction, only that, if necessary, we defer
proceeding until consideration of the affected items is
appropriate. Cf. Harris v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 121, 128
(1992), affd. 16 F.3d 75 (5th Cir. 1994) (recognizing the
propriety of deferring entry of decision to consider affected
items). Indeed, petitioner and the participating partner in
Rhone-Poulenc have agreed to a consolidation for trial if both
cases are to go to trial.
2This assumes that I shall be vindicated in my
interpretation of sec. 6229(d). See Rhone-Poulenc Surfactants &
Specialties, L.P. v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. __ , __(2000)
(Halpern, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011