- 16 -
imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44), subtitle E, and various
additions to tax and penalties. See secs. 6211(a), 6214;
Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1259-1260 (1981) (section
6672 addition to tax); Judd v. Commissioner, 74 T.C. 651 (1980)
(section 6652(c) addition to tax); Chatterji v. Commissioner, 54
T.C. 1402 (1970) (overpayment of FICA taxes); see also Fischer v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-586 n.3 (section 6682 penalty);
Hintz v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-425 (overpayment of
Railroad Retirement taxes), affd. 712 F.2d 281 (7th Cir. 1983).
Concluding that we had jurisdiction in this case would have
allowed the Court to reach the merits of whether petitioners are
liable for the frivolous return penalty pursuant to section 6702.
Petitioners, however, could not have directly petitioned the
Court to review whether they were liable for this penalty. Sec.
6703(b), (c)(2). Judge Beghe’s interpretation would provide a
backdoor through which taxpayers could slip through by waiting
until collection to litigate liability for taxes, additions to
tax, and penalties that they are prevented from petitioning this
Court to review via our deficiency jurisdiction.
III. Stare Decisis
Principles of stare decisis weigh against overruling
Moore and Van Es. With regard to stare decisis, the Supreme
Court has stated as follows:
the important doctrine of stare decisis [is] the means
by which we ensure that the law will not merely change
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