- 5 -
“bogus” and “a fraud and a sham”. Petitioners also allege that
respondent bullies taxpayers into responding affirmatively to the
checkoff question, i.e., into designating $3 to go to the fund.
Regarding their second request, petitioners contend that
there is a “material deficiency” in Form 1040EZ in that the form
does not include a schedule designed to determine whether, and if
so how much of, a taxpayer’s Social Security benefits are
taxable. In petitioners’ view, the worksheet that appears in the
Form 1040EZ Instructions is inadequate because it is not designed
to be filed with the return and is therefore not available to
respondent’s agents when examining returns.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction. See sec.
7442; Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879, 881 (1983).
This means that we have only such jurisdiction as the Congress
has chosen to confer on us by statute. See Commissioner v. Gooch
Milling & Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 420-422 (1943); Medeiros v.
Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259 (1981). Insofar as the power to
enjoin is concerned, the Congress has conferred jurisdiction only
in limited and specific circumstances. See, e.g., secs. 6213(a),
6512(b)(2). Such circumstances are not present in the instant
case, and we therefore lack jurisdiction to grant (or deny) the
relief requested by petitioners.
Petitioners may care to present their concerns regarding the
Presidential election fund to their elected representatives.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011