Estate of Algerine Allen Smith, Deceased, James Allen Smith, Executor - Page 26

                                       - 26 -                                         
          jurisdiction to modify our decision that there was an overpayment           
          of $238,847.24.22                                                           
               We have consistently held that we do not have equitable                
          power to expand our jurisdiction.  As we stated in Woods v.                 
          Commissioner, supra at 784:                                                 
                    An historical analysis of our cases discloses                     
               numerous instances where we have applied equitable                     
               principles in deciding issues over which we had                        
               jurisdiction.  For example, we have applied the equity-                
               based principles of waiver, duty of consistency,                       
               estoppel, substantial compliance, abuse of discretion,                 
               laches, and the tax benefit rule.  “While we cannot                    
               expand our jurisdiction through equitable principles,                  
               we can apply equitable principles in the disposition of                

               22Sec. 7481(c) allows only a taxpayer (not the Commissioner)           
          to file a motion for the redetermination of interest under                  
          certain circumstances.  The estate’s motion before us is based on           
          sec. 6512(b).  Respondent makes no argument that sec. 7481(c) has           
          any relevance to the estate’s motion.  Indeed, the 1997                     
          legislative history regarding sec. 7481(c) specifically states:             
               In clarifying the Tax Court’s jurisdiction over                        
               interest determinations, the conferees do not intend to                
               limit any other remedies that taxpayers may currently                  
               have with respect to such determinations, including in                 
               particular refund proceedings relating solely to the                   
               amount of interest due.  [H. Conf. Rept. 105-220, at                   
               733 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1457, 2203.]                          
          A proceeding under sec. 6512(b) is one of the “other remedies”              
          that taxpayers had.  In field service advice, the Chief Counsel’s           
          National Office has recognized that the Tax Court has                       
          jurisdiction under sec. 6512(b) to consider alleged overpayments            
          of underpayment interest and that:                                          
               the Tax Court has auxiliary jurisdiction under section                 
               7481(c) to determine whether the taxpayer has made an                  
               overpayment of interest or the Service has underpaid                   
               interest based upon a deficiency or overpayment                        
               decision entered by the court * * *  [Field Serv. Adv.                 
               2000-12049 (Mar. 24, 2000); emphasis added.]                           





Page:  Previous  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011