- 9 -
not “revise the language of the statute as interpreted by the
Treasury to achieve what might be perceived to be better tax
policy.” FleetBoston Fin. Corp. v. United States, 68 Fed. Cl.
177, 188 (2005) (quoting Marsh & McLennan Cos. v. United States,
supra, at 1381). Rather, we must apply the language of the
relevant provisions, as written. See Commissioner v. Lundy, 516
U.S. 235, 252 (1996) (courts are “bound by the language of the
statute as it is written”); Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U.S.
386, 398 (1984) (“Courts are not authorized to rewrite a statute
because they might deem its effect susceptible of improvement.”).
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and lacks
general equitable powers. Commissioner v. McCoy, 484 U.S. 3, 7
(1987); Hays Corp. v. Commissioner, 40 T.C. 436, 442-443 (1963),
affd. 331 F.2d 422 (7th Cir. 1964). Our jurisdiction to grant
equitable relief is limited. Woods v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 776,
784-787 (1989); Estate of Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 73 T.C.
1014, 1017-1018 (1980). Accordingly, we must sustain
respondent’s determination.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011