David Bruce Billings - Page 31

                                       - 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                 
               10In Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S. 386, 393-394                  
          (1984), the Supreme Court of the United States stated:                      

Page:  Previous  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011