- 4 -
recognized, as a corollary to the foregoing principle, that the
Court lacks equitable powers to expand its statutorily prescribed
jurisdiction. E.g., Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7 (1987);
Bokum v. Commissioner, 992 F.2d 1136, 1140 (11th Cir. 1993),
affg. T.C. Memo. 1990-21; Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776, 785
(1989). Moreover, the existence of jurisdiction in a particular
case is fundamental and may be raised at any point in the
proceeding, either by a party or by the Court sua sponte. E.g.,
Smith v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 36, 40 (2005); Raymond v.
Commissioner, supra at 193; Naftel v. Commissioner, supra at 530.
For the reasons set forth in Billings v. Commissioner,
supra, the Court has concluded that our jurisdiction under the
laws governing joint and several liability does not extend to
review of the Commissioner’s denials of requests for relief
pursuant to section 6015(f) where no deficiency has been
asserted. Nor can equitable or policy concerns expand this
jurisdiction in disregard of the express provisions of the
statute enacted by Congress. Accordingly, we are constrained to
dismiss this case for lack of jurisdiction.
To reflect the foregoing,
An order of dismissal for
lack of jurisdiction will be
entered.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4
Last modified: May 25, 2011