- 46 -
that this Court is authorized to exercise in performing this
Court’s judicial functions. Congress’s elevation of this Court
to an “exclusively judicial” court means that this Court’s legal
and equitable powers are diametrically different from this
Court’s executive agency predecessors which wielded executive
powers only. Congress’s elevation of this Court to an
“exclusively judicial” court means that this Court possesses all
of the inherent powers of a District Court.6
The Court’s Opinion on pages 23-24 quotes Wapnick v.
Commissioner, 365 F.3d 131 (2d Cir. 2004), as to the need for a
tax decision to be final. The Supreme Court opinion discussed in
6 I note in particular Contl. Equities, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 551 F.2d 74 (5th Cir. 1977), revg. on grounds not
relevant herein T.C. Memo. 1974-189. There, the Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit held that this Court had no authority to
apply the doctrine of equitable recoupment. We recently stated
as to that decision:
more than 2 decades have passed since the 1977 decision
in Continental Equities, Inc. v. Commissioner, 551 F.2d
74 (5th Cir. 1977). In that interval, the concept of
Tax Court jurisdiction has been substantially refined.
Concerning equitable recoupment in particular, the
opinion by the Supreme Court in United States v. Dalm,
494 U.S. 596 (1990), which served as a catalyst for our
own reevaluation of our position, was issued only in
1990. Furthermore, since 1977 the Courts of Appeals
have begun increasingly to acknowledge the difference
between exercising equitable powers to take
jurisdiction and applying equitable principles to
decide matters within the Court’s jurisdiction. For
instance, a series of recent decisions has consistently
affirmed on such basis Tax Court authority to reform
written agreements and to apply equitable
estoppel. * * * [Estate of Orenstein v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-150.]
Page: Previous 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011