-4-
matter of a dispute is an issue that either party thereto may
raise at any time. The failure to question our jurisdiction is
not a waiver of the right to do so, for if we lack jurisdiction
over an issue, we do not have the power to decide it. Ins. Corp.
of Ireland, Ltd. v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S.
694, 702 (1982); see also Raymond v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 191,
193 (2002), and the cases cited therein. The requirement that
jurisdiction be established “[springs] from the nature and limits
of the judicial power of the United States” and is “inflexible
and without exception”. Mansfield, C. & L.M.R. Co. v. Swan, 111
U.S. 379, 382 (1884); see also Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better
Envt., 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998).
Petitioner argues primarily that the text of section 7436(a)
does not give us jurisdiction in an employment tax case such as
this to redetermine an addition to an employment tax. We
disagree. Recently, in Ewens & Miller, Inc. v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 263, 267-268 (2001), we held that we did have
jurisdiction over such matter. We do likewise here for the
reasons stated therein. We repeat for emphasis that section
7436(a), when read in the context of the Internal Revenue Code as
a whole, and especially sections 6665(a)(2) and 7436(e), gives
this Court the requisite jurisdiction to redetermine an addition
to tax in an employment tax case such as this brought under
section 7436(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011