David Bruce Billings - Page 16

                                       - 16 -                                         
          them.  We concluded early on that, when that happens, we should             
          keep deciding cases as we think right.  Lawrence v. Commissioner,           
          27 T.C. 713, 717 (1957), revd. 258 F.2d 562 (9th Cir. 1958).  And           
          although we also recognize an exception to that rule--we won’t              
          follow our precedent in a case appealable to a circuit where we             
          would surely be reversed, see Lardas v. Commissioner, 99 T.C.               
          490, 495 (1992), explaining Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742             
          (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971)--we do not always               
          wait for the Supreme Court to restore consistency in construing             
          the Tax Code when one or more circuit courts disagree with us.              
          As we said nearly fifty years ago, we have “no desire to ignore             
          or lightly regard any decisions of those courts,” and have “not             
          infrequently * * * been persuaded by the reasoning of opinions of           
          those courts to change [our] views on various questions being               
          litigated.”  Lawrence, 27 T.C. at 717.                                      
               The opinions in Ewing I and Bartman change the judicial                
          landscape, see Robinson v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 44, 51 (2002),            
          and so we now reconsider our earlier reading of section 6015(e).            
          In Ewing I, we thought that reading the key phrase in the                   
          amendment--“In the case of an individual against whom a                     
          deficiency has been asserted”--as limiting our jurisdiction made            
          little sense if the remaining language, as we had construed it in           
          Butler and Fernandez, continued to allow us to grant subsection             
          (f) relief.  This did not read the amendment entirely out of the            

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011