David Bruce Billings - Page 49

                                       - 49 -                                         
               VASQUEZ, J., dissenting:  Respectfully, I do not believe we            
          should reverse our decision in Ewing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.              
          494 (2002) (Ewing I), revd. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).                  
               We have previously considered what we should do when an                
          issue comes before us a second time after a Court of Appeals has            
          reversed a prior Tax Court opinion on the same point.  Lardas v.            
          Commissioner, 99 T.C. 490, 494 (1992).  In Lawrence v.                      
          Commissioner, 27 T.C. 713, 716-717 (1957), revd. 258 F.2d 562               
          (9th Cir. 1958), we decided that, although we should seriously              
          consider the reasoning of the Court of Appeals which reversed our           
          decision, we ought not follow the reversal if we believe it is              
          incorrect.  See Lardas v. Commissioner, supra.                              
               The Tax Court, being a tribunal with national                          
               jurisdiction over litigation involving the                             
               interpretation of Federal taxing statutes which may                    
               come to it from all parts of the country, has * * *                    
               [an] obligation to apply with uniformity its                           
               interpretation of those statutes.  That is the way it                  
               has always seen its statutory duty and, with all due                   
               respect to the Courts of Appeals, it cannot                            
               conscientiously change unless Congress or the Supreme                  
               Court so directs.  [Lawrence v. Commissioner, supra at                 

               This case is not governed by the Golsen doctrine.  See Court           
          op. pp. 7, 16.  In Ewing I, we interpreted the statute.  If                 
          Congress disagrees with that interpretation, then Congress can              
          revise the statute to provide otherwise.  Neal v. United States,            
          516 U.S. 284, 295-296 (1996).                                               

Page:  Previous  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  57  58  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011