- 9 -
letter, petitioners’ counsel informed respondent that petitioners
had received the January 4, 1999, refunds but had also sent the
February 12, 1999, remittances to respondent to stop the running
of interest and pay all outstanding liabilities and interest.
Sometime after December 3, 2001, the date of petitioners’
counsel’s letter, respondent discovered that the erroneous
refunds had been made. Before the discovery of the erroneous
refunds after that date, neither counsel for petitioners nor for
respondent were aware that the erroneous refunds had been sent to
petitioners.
Discussion
The parties have stipulated that Cook v. Commissioner,
supra, resolves the substantive issue of petitioners’ Federal
gift tax liability in the instant case. The parties are bound to
that stipulation. Blonien v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 541 (2002);
see Niedringhaus v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 202 (1992). The only
issue we must decide is whether we have jurisdiction to decide
whether the February 12, 1999, remittances paid the deficiencies
in issue in the instant case.
The United States Tax Court is a court of limited
jurisdiction, in that this Court possesses only adjudicatory
powers that Congress has conferred upon it. Naftel v.
Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527 (1985); see Euramco Associates, Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-39, affd. sub nom. Albert J.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011