- 39 -
Subsequently, the Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 56,
was enacted. Section 274(g) of the Revenue Act of 1926
eliminated the overpayment jurisdiction the Board concluded it
had in Barry v. Commissioner, supra. Estate of Mueller v.
Commissioner, 101 T.C. at 558-559. The Supreme Court observed:
Before section 272(g) [of the Revenue Act of 1934,
48 Stat. 680] of the Internal Revenue Code was enacted,
the Board [of Tax Appeals] held that it had
jurisdiction to determine an overpayment for a year as
to which no deficiency had been found by the
Commissioner and to apply that overpayment against the
liability for the year as to which he found a
deficiency * * * . Appeal of E.J. Barry, 1 B.T.A. 156.
Soon thereafter, however, Congress passed section
274(g) of the Revenue Act of 1926 (now section 272(g)
of the Internal Revenue Code) taking such jurisdiction
away from the board. [Commissioner v. Gooch Milling &
Elevator Co., 320 U.S. 418, 421 n.7 (1943); emphasis
added.]
Congress, at the same time, also confirmed and clarified the
Board’s jurisdiction and authority to decide an overpayment.
Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, sec. 284(e), 44 Stat. 67.
Thus, in 1924, in Barry, the Board decided it had
overpayment jurisdiction, and Congress confirmed the Board’s
jurisdiction and authority to decide an overpayment in the
Revenue Act of 1926.
2. My View
My view advances our established precedent that “In view of
the statutory scheme as a whole, we think the substantive and
procedural protections contained in sections 6320 and 6330
reflect congressional intent that the Commissioner should collect
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011