Llwellyn Greene-Thapedi - Page 38

                                       - 38 -                                         
               Shortly after the Revenue Act of 1924 was enacted, Congress            
          held hearings regarding the Act and devoted 2 days of the                   
          hearings to the Board of Tax Appeals.  Revenue Revision, 1925,              
          Hearings before the Committee on Ways and Means House of                    
          Representatives (1925 Hearings), 69th Cong. iii-iv (1925).  Two             
          points Congress repeatedly heard were that (1) the Board was                
          overwhelmed and overworked by the amount of business it had to              
          transact and (2) the Board’s jurisdiction should be limited so              
          that it could continue to function.  Id. at 10 (statement of Hon.           
          Andrew W. Mellon, Secretary of the Treasury), 854 (statement of             
          Dr. Joseph J. Klein), 870 (statement of J. Gilmer Korner, Jr.,              
          Chairman Board of Tax Appeals), 884 and 904 (statement of George            
          M. Morris, Secretary Special Committee on Taxation of the                   
          American Bar Association), 934 (statement of A.W. Gregg,                    
          Solicitor of Internal Revenue, Treasury Department).                        
               Additionally, a former chairman of the Board of Tax Appeals            
          noted that the issue of the Board’s jurisdiction was of great               
          importance, that Congress’s grant of jurisdiction to the Board              
          was “somewhat indefinite and does not clearly define what cases             
          it may take jurisdiction of”, and that regarding certain                    
          overpayment cases that the Board had heard:  “As to those cases             
          the commissioner, before the board, has questioned the board’s              
          jurisdiction, and the board has held that it has jurisdiction.”             
          Id. at 922-923 (statement of Charles D. Hamel).                             






Page:  Previous  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011