-4-
522-523. We noted that the Commissioner had been prejudiced by
the taxpayers’ filing of the petition by virtue of the fact that
he was precluded from assessing and collecting the taxes which he
had determined the taxpayers owed. Id. at 524.
In Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, supra at 521-522, we also
relied on our opinion in Dorl v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 720
(1972), affd. 507 F.2d 406 (2d Cir. 1974), which held that a
taxpayer may not remove a case from this Court in order to refile
it in District Court. We observed in Dorl that the filing of a
petition in this Court gives us exclusive jurisdiction under
section 6512(a), which acts to bar a refund suit in the District
Court for the same tax and the same year. We noted that this
observation was supported by the legislative history accompanying
the enactment of the predecessors of sections 6512(a) and
7459(d). That history states that, when a taxpayer petitions the
Board of Tax Appeals, the Board’s decision, once final, settles
the taxpayer’s tax liability for the year in question even if the
decision resulted from a dismissal requested by the taxpayer.
Estate of Ming v. Commissioner, supra at 522.
We believe that our holding in Estate of Ming is
inapplicable to the setting at hand where petitioners have
petitioned this Court under section 6320(c). Section 7459(d)
applies specifically to a petition that is filed for a
redetermination of a deficiency and makes no mention of a
petition that is filed under section 6320(c) to review a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011