- 19 -
the public are justified in expecting the Court, except in the
most egregious cases, not to depart from the previous
interpretation. Hesselink v. Commissioner, supra at 100; Burnet
v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U.S. 393, 406-408 (1932)
(Brandeis, J., dissenting).
On December 21, 2000, in the Community Renewal Tax Relief
Act of 2000 (CRTRA), Pub. L. 106-554, sec. 314(f), 114 Stat.
2763A-643, Congress legislatively overruled Henry Randolph
Consulting v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 1 (1999). In CRTRA,
Congress also amended section 6330(d)(1) and chose to let the
holdings in Moore and Van Es stand.2 CRTRA sec. 313(d). The
fact that Congress amended section 6330(d)(1) and chose not to
overrule Moore and Van Es weighs heavily against overruling them.
See, e.g., Hesselink v. Commissioner, supra at 100 (Congress can
cure any error made by the Court).
IV. Petitioners’ “Delay Tactics”
I am not convinced that petitioners are delay seekers whose
sole purpose in bringing this case was to gum up the works by
unreasonably and vexatiously multiplying the proceedings.
I agree that the notice of determination instructed
petitioners to bring their case in the district court.
2 The only change Congress made to sec. 6330(d)(1) was to
alter the language in the subsection (1)(A) parenthetical from
“and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to hear such matter”
to “and the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction with respect
to such matter”. CRTRA sec. 313(d), 114 Stat. 2763A-643
(emphasis added).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011