Estate of Algerine Allen Smith, Deceased, James Allen Smith, Executor - Page 24

                                       - 24 -                                         
               considering the predecessor to section 7481, the                       
               Supreme Court ruled that after an order of the Tax                     
               Court has become final the “statute deprives us of                     
               jurisdiction over the case.”  R. Simpson & Co. v.                      
               Commissioner, 321 U.S. 225, 230 (1944); see also Lasky                 
               v. Commissioner, 235 F.2d 97, 99 (9th Cir. 1956).  The                 
               Court recognized that “the usual rules of law                          
               applicable in court procedure must be changed” to                      
               achieve the finality needed in the realm of tax                        
               decisions.  See Simpson, 321 U.S. at 228.                              
               It is suggested that the result of our opinion is                      
          inequitable and hands the estate a windfall.  However, the fact             
          that our overpayment decision in this case was appealed,                    
          affirmed, and has become final, deprives us, and any other court,           
          of jurisdiction to modify the final decision that there was an              
          overpayment of $238,847.24.20  This rule of finality can result             

               20Sec. 6512(a) generally deprives any other court from                 
          taking jurisdiction to determine an overpayment if the taxpayer             
          has filed a petition in the Tax Court.  The origin of sec.                  
          6512(a), as applied to estate taxes, is sec. 319(a) of the                  
          Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. (Part 2) 84.  S. Rept. 52,            
          69th Cong., 1st Sess. (1926), 1939-1 C.B. (Part 2) 332, 351,                
          explains the reasons for the enactment of sec. 319(a) of the                
          Revenue Act of 1926 as follows:                                             
                    But if he [taxpayer] does elect to file a petition                
               with the Board his entire tax liability for the year in                
               question (except in case of fraud) is finally and                      
               completely settled by the decision of the Board when it                
               has become final, whether the decision is by findings                  
               of fact and opinion, or by dismissal, as in case of                    
               lack of prosecution, insufficiency of evidence to                      
               sustain the petition, or on the taxpayer’s own motion.                 
               The duty of the Commissioner to assess the deficiency                  
               thus determined is mandatory, and no matter how                        
               meritorious a claim for abatement of the assessment or                 
               for refund he can not entertain it, nor can suit be                    
               maintained against the United States or the collector.                 
               Finality is the end sought to be attained by these                     
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011