- 5 -
respondent’s collection action. Rather, petitioner contends that
respondent waived the right to challenge this Court’s
jurisdiction by stating on the notice of determination that the
proper method for disputing the determination was to file a
petition with this Court.
Petitioner’s contention is without merit. We previously
have held that this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the
liability of taxpayers with respect to penalties imposed by
section 6672. Moore v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000);
Medeiros v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 1255, 1260 (1981); Wilt v.
Commissioner, 60 T.C. 977, 978 (1973). In Moore v. Commissioner,
supra at 175, we stated: “Section 6672(c)(2) contemplates that
the Federal District Court or the Court of Federal Claims shall
have jurisdiction to determine a taxpayer’s liability for a
penalty imposed under that section. The Tax Court does not have
jurisdiction”.4
4Whereas sec. 6672(c)(2) imposes procedural requirements for
refund suits in U.S. District Courts and the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims, sec. 6672 makes no reference to the
jurisdictional authority of this Court. Sec. 6672(c)(2)
provides:
(2) Suit must be brought to determine liability
for penalty.--If, within 30 days after the day on which
his claim for refund with respect to any penalty under
subsection (a) is denied, the person described in
paragraph (1) fails to begin a proceeding in the
appropriate United States district court (or in the
Court of Claims) for the determination of his liability
for such penalty, paragraph (1) shall cease to apply
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011