- 38 -
reviews mentioned in section 1005 no doubt measure the
taxpayer’s right to litigate, and the Board’s decision
is final on exhaustion or neglect of them as against
further appeals. But it does not follow that the
decision may not be further dealt with by the Board
itself in its discretion or that no extraordinary
relief against it can ever be had. Decisions of the
Secretary of the Interior in matters affecting the
public lands were by statute declared to be final, but
that meant only as to further appeals, and did not
exclude the courts from inquiring in extraordinary
cases whether the law had been violated thereby.
Johnson v. Towsley, 13 Wall. 72, 83, 20 L. Ed. 485.
The Secretary himself can sometimes revise his own
decision, as when obtained by fraud, though the statute
declare it final and conclusive. Lane, Secretary v.
United States ex rel. Mickadiet, 241 U. S. 201, 36 S.
Ct. 599, 60 L. Ed. 956. So the Secretary of Labor’s
decisions on deportation proceedings are by statute
final, but on extraordinary occasions they are inquired
into on habeas corpus. Lindsey, U. S. Immigration
Inspector v. Dobra (C. C. A.) 62 F.(2d) 116. [Id. at
630-631.]
Whereas the Courts of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit stated in
Swall v. Commissioner, 122 F.2d 324, 324-325 (9th Cir. 1941),
that La Floridienne J. Buttgenbach & Co. v. Commissioner, supra,
was “in effect overruled by Helvering v. Northern Coal Co.,
supra,” I have not heard the Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit, nor any of the other 11 Courts of Appeals, to have
stated similarly.
D. 1969 Act
The 1969 Act made this Court the functional equivalent of a
District Court. See 1969 Act sec. 951, 83 Stat. 730; see also
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868, 890-892 (1991). Through
that Act, Congress changed the status of this Court from an
Page: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011