- 11 -
“determine” in section 6015(e) and “redetermination” in section
6213(a) for purposes of this discussion.
Since 1924, the Tax Court (and the predecessor Board of Tax
Appeals, see Consol. Cos. v. Commissioner, 15 B.T.A. 645, 652
(1929)) has had jurisdiction to “redetermine” deficiencies and
additions to tax, secs. 6213 and 6214(a); and, since 1926, to
determine overpayments, sec. 6512(b). Under section 6213(a) and
its predecessors, we (and earlier, the Board of Tax Appeals) have
“redetermined” deficiencies de novo, not limited to the
Commissioner’s administrative record, for more than 75 years.
We can presume that Congress was aware of this long history
in 1998 when Congress used the word “determine” in section 6015.
If Congress includes language from a prior statute in a new
statute, courts can presume that Congress intended the
longstanding legal interpretation of that language to be applied
to the new statute. Commissioner v. Noel’s Estate, 380 U.S. 678,
680-681 (1965); United States v. 101.80 Acres, 716 F.2d 714, 721
(9th Cir. 1983).
There are other situations in which this Court makes
determinations de novo. For example, section 7436(a) provides
that the Tax Court may “determine” whether the Commissioner’s
determination regarding an individual’s employment status is
correct. Congress intended that we conduct a trial de novo with
respect to our determinations regarding employment status. See
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011