- 25 -
provisions, delays we take notice of in the companion case of
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. (2001) (jurisdictional
opinion) (slip op. at 10), satisfy the exceptional circumstances
conditions set forth in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S.
833, 854-855 (1992), for reconsideration and repudiation of
recent precedent.
Against this background of judicial abstention, what next?
At the risk of presumptuousness in drawing additional attention
to ambiguities in the statute, I hope that this case will lead to
congressional reconsideration and enactment of a more explicit
grant of jurisdiction to this Court to provide one-stop shopping
in all cases under sections 6320 and 6330. In the aftermath of
September 11, 2001, the reminder that “taxes are the life-blood
of government, and their prompt and certain availability an
imperious need”,2 should trump self-imposed Alphonse and Gaston
jurisdictional niceties.
Finally, let me lay to rest any concerns that this
dissenting opinion publicizes ambiguities other tax protesters
will exploit to create unjustified delays in collection of
assessments. From now on until the ambiguities are cured, any
taxpayer who files a petition with the Tax Court in a collection
case in which the Tax Court does not have jurisdiction of the
2 Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 259 (1935); see also
Tyler v. United States, 281 U.S. 497, 503 (1930).
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