- 64 -
In order to make that determination, in the context of the
instant case we must determine whether petitioner made a valid
section 6166 election.
Because our determination as to whether petitioner made a
valid section 6166 election can affect our resolution of the
parties’ dispute over the section 6651(a)(2) addition to tax in
the instant case--a matter over which we have undisputed
jurisdiction26--it follows that we have jurisdiction to decide
the validity of the section 6166 election in the instant case.
Cf. Estate of Bell v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 714, 721-723 (1989),
affd. on another issue 928 F.2d 901 (9th Cir. 1991). The same
analysis has been applied to a variety of matters, including
interest on overpayments (see Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. & Subs. v.
Commissioner, 110 T.C. 291 (1998); Estate of Baumgardner v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 445 (1985)), compliance with the
Administrative Procedure Act (see Redhouse v. Commissioner, 728
F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1984), affg. Wendland v. Commissioner,
79 T.C. 355 (1982)), review of the Commissioner’s exercise of
26 See Estate of Young v. Commissioner, 81 T.C. 879 (1983),
holding this Court generally lacks jurisdiction over the sec.
6651(a)(2) addition to tax for failure to pay tax. The Congress
believed it was appropriate for the Tax Court to have
jurisdiction over this addition to tax, and therefore amended
sec. 6214(a) in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec.
1554(a), 100 Stat. 2754, effective for any action or proceeding
before the Tax Court which had not become final before Oct. 22,
1986.
Page: Previous 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011