- 9 -
Petitioners’ assertion that Congress used the broadest
possible language to describe this Court’s jurisdiction under
section 6330(d)(1) is contradicted by the language of the section
itself. Section 6330(d)(1)(B) provides that when the Tax Court
does not have jurisdiction over the underlying tax liability, the
District Courts will instead have jurisdiction. See also sec.
301.6330-1(f)(1), Q&A-F3, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Therefore, section 6330(d)(1) does not expand this Court’s
jurisdiction beyond the types of tax we may normally consider.
See Van Es v. Commissioner, supra at 328-329; Moore v.
Commissioner, supra at 175.
3. The Court’s Analysis in Downing v. Commissioner Does Not
Control the Present Cases
Petitioners next argue that this Court’s analysis in Downing
v. Commissioner, supra, is equally applicable to the present
cases, and using the same rationale, the Court should have
jurisdiction over section 6652(c)(1) penalties.
In Downing, this Court considered whether we have
jurisdiction over section 6651(a)(2) additions to tax for failure
to timely pay the amount shown on a tax return. Downing v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 26. The Court stated:
The Tax Court generally has jurisdiction over income,
gift, and estate tax cases for purposes of section
6330(d)(1)(A) because we have deficiency jurisdiction
relating to those taxes. * * * Thus, just as we
generally have jurisdiction to decide income, gift, and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011