- 14 -
addressed the question as to whether such jurisdiction arises
implicitly in collection review proceedings commenced in this
Court pursuant to section 6330.13 The legislative history of
this Court’s overpayment and refund jurisdiction in deficiency
proceedings is relevant in addressing this question.14
When our predecessor, the Board of Tax Appeals (the Board)
was created in 1924, it lacked jurisdiction to determine an
overpayment for the year in question in a deficiency
proceeding.15 Cf. Dickerman & Englis, Inc. v. Commissioner, 5
B.T.A. 633, 634-635 (1926). The Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44
Stat. 9, established the Board’s jurisdiction to determine an
overpayment in a deficiency proceeding. The Board still had no
jurisdiction, however, to order payment of any resulting refund.
Id. at 635-636; see United States ex rel. Girard Trust Co. v.
13 This Court has exercised its inherent equitable powers to
order the Commissioner to return to the taxpayer property that
was improperly levied upon, see Chocallo v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2004-152, and to require the Commissioner to provide to the
taxpayer a credit with respect to property that the Commissioner
had seized pursuant to a jeopardy levy but had improperly refused
to sell in compliance with the taxpayer’s request made pursuant
to sec. 6335(f), see Zapara v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 223 (2005).
14 By “deficiency proceeding” we mean a proceeding filed in
Tax Court pursuant to sec. 6213 challenging a notice of
deficiency issued pursuant to sec. 6212(a).
15 But cf. Commissioner v. Gooch Milling & Elevator Co., 320
U.S. 418, 421 n.7 (1943) (noting the Board’s assumption of
jurisdiction, and the legislative revocation thereof, to
determine an overpayment for a nondeficiency year in unique
circumstances where the overpayment was netted against the
deficiency).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011