- 48 -
by the two types of court”. As stated by the Court of Appeals
for the Eleventh Circuit in the setting of equitable estoppel:
If the Tax Court lacked authority to entertain a
claim of equitable estoppel, taxpayers with such a
claim would no longer have a choice of fora for their
tax issues. They would effectively be forced to pay
their taxes and sue for a refund, submitting all of
their claims to the district courts. Taxpayers would
then be barred by res judicata from relitigating a
claim in the Tax Court. Thus, taxpayers would
essentially be denied the right to challenge
deficiencies in the Tax Court if they wanted to assert
an equitable estoppel claim. This would be an unfair
choice to pose to taxpayers, and would undermine the
purpose of the Tax Court. We therefore conclude that
the Tax Court did have jurisdiction over the Bokums’
equitable estoppel claim. [Bokum v. Commissioner,
992 F.2d 1136, 1140-1141 (11th Cir. 1993), affg. T.C.
Memo. 1990-21.]
Accord Estate of Branson v. Commissioner, 264 F.3d at 911-912.
Both of these statements apply equally to an application of rule
60(b).
VASQUEZ and GALE, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion.
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011