Service Employees International Union - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          2.  Section 6330(d)(1) Does Not Expand the Tax Court’s                      
               Petitioners assert that section 6330(d)(1) is a new and                
          independent grant of jurisdiction, that Congress intended this              
          Court to have primary jurisdiction over section 6330 hearings,              
          and “If the limiting language of IRC �6330(d)(1)(B) is examined             
          with an [sic] view to the purpose of the language, it is obvious            
          [section 6652(c)(1)] is a matter over which the Tax Court should            
          insist it has jurisdiction.”  Petitioners further argue:                    
          “If Congress intended to narrowly conscribe the Tax Court’s                 
          jurisdiction under IRC �6330(d)(1), it could easily have done so.           
          Instead, Congress used the broadest possible language to describe           
          the jurisdiction of the Tax Court under �6330(d)(1).”  We                   
               In Moore v. Commissioner, supra at 175, this Court stated:             
               While Congress clearly intended for section 6330 to                    
               provide an opportunity for judicial review of                          
               collection matters, we interpret section 6330(d)(1)(A)                 
               and (B) together to mean that Congress did not intend                  
               to expand the Court’s jurisdiction beyond the types of                 
               taxes that the Court may normally consider.  Thus,                     
               section 6330(d)(1)(A) and (B) provides for Tax Court                   
               jurisdiction except where the Court does not normally                  
               have jurisdiction over the underlying liability.                       
          See also Van Es v. Commissioner, supra at 328 (holding that                 
          section 6330(d)(1) does not expand the Court’s jurisdiction to              
          cover section 6702 frivolous return penalties).  Petitioners                
          assert that Congress did not intend such a narrow reading but               
          cite no authority.                                                          

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011