- 10 -
Concerning the nature of this Court, we have focused on the
difference between the highly circumscribed authority of an
executive agency such as the Board of Tax Appeals and the broader
judicial power exercised by an Article I court. See Estate of
Branson v. Commissioner, supra at 10-12. We have further
concluded therefrom that Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator
Co., supra, and its progeny are not controlling on the issue of
equitable recoupment. See Estate of Branson v. Commissioner,
supra, at 11-12.
With respect to the Court’s role in resolving tax
controversies, we have placed particular emphasis on the
distinction between expanding our jurisdiction through equitable
powers and applying equitable principles in disposition of cases
that come within our jurisdiction. See Estate of Branson v.
Commissioner, supra at 12; Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner,
supra at 435; Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, supra at 556-
557. Only the former is prohibited and only the latter is
involved when the affirmative defense of equitable recoupment is
considered in resolving a deficiency proceeding properly before
us. See Estate of Branson v. Commissioner, supra at 12-13;
Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner, supra at 435-436; Estate of
Mueller v. Commissioner, supra at 557. Moreover, in considering
our role in relation to that of the U.S. District Courts, we have
noted the following:
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011