- 31 -
qualification as other than a clear, though perhaps
inadvertent, deprivation of our jurisdiction over
nondeficiency stand-alone petitions. Placing that
circumscription where it did, the “assertion of a
deficiency” has become the “ticket to Tax Court” that
notices of deficiency are in redetermination cases.
Court op. p. 17.
In asserting “that ‘deficiency’ itself has a defined
meaning--the amount by which the tax imposed by the Internal
Revenue Code exceeds the amount reported on a return, including
an amended return”, Court op. p. 17, the Court Opinion apparently
relies on section 301.6211-1(a), Proced. & Admin. Regs., see
Court op. p. 9. In maintaining that the term “deficiency” has
the meaning set forth in that regulation for all purposes of the
Code, including section 6015, the Court Opinion fails to
acknowledge, let alone discuss, a long line of cases holding that
the term “return” in the Code generally means the original
return.9 See, e.g., Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386
(1984).10 The Court Opinion is wrong in maintaining that the
9Perhaps the Court Opinion believes that the parties
implicitly agree that the meaning attributed by the Court Opinion
to the term “deficiency” in sec. 6015 is correct because they
“stipulated that * * * [petitioner] did not qualify for relief
under either section 6015(b) or (c) because no deficiency was
ever asserted against him and his wife.” Court op. p. 8.
Suffice it to say that the Court is not bound by any stipulation
of the parties as to the law. Godlewski v. Commissioner, 90 T.C.
200, 203 n.5 (1988); Sivils v. Commissioner, 86 T.C. 79, 82
(1986).
10In Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 393-394
(1984), the Supreme Court of the United States stated:
(continued...)
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011