- 4 -
In Robinson v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 735, 737 (1972), we
held that “The statute of limitations is a defense in bar and not
a plea to the jurisdiction of this Court.” See Badger Materials,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 1061 (1963). Section 7459(e)
provides:
SEC. 7459(e). Effect of Decision That Tax Is
Barred by Limitation.--If the assessment or
collection of any tax is barred by any statute of
limitations, the decision of the Tax Court to that
effect shall be considered as its decision that
there is no deficiency in respect of such tax.[6]
5(...continued)
3. Petitioner proposes to amend her Petition
to raise the affirmative defense of statute of
limitations. The proposed Amendment to Petition
accompanies this Motion.
4. The Court has jurisdiction to decide
whether the statutes of limitations on the
underlying joint and several liabilities have
expired. The Court has held that “once our
jurisdiction has been properly invoked in a case,
we require no additional jurisdiction to render a
decision with respect to such an affirmative
defense [statute of limitations].” Genesis Oil &
Gas, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 562, 564
(1989).
5. In Neely v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 287
(2000), an analogous case, the Court held that it
had jurisdiction to decide an affirmative defense
raised by the petitioner in a section 7436 case
(Proceedings for Determination of Employment
Status).
6“If the Tax Court finds that the assessment or collection
of a tax is barred by the statute of limitations, such a finding
constitutes a decision that there is no deficiency with respect
to such tax.” Whirlpool Corp. v. Commissioner, 61 T.C. 182, 184
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011