- 42 -
Id. at 458. The majority merely punish (1) taxpayers whose cash
reserves make it impossible for them to pursue relief in a
District Court or the Court of Federal Claims, (2) taxpayers who
are too unsophisticated to realize that a suit in District Court
or the Court of Federal Claims could preserve his right to a
refund, and (3) taxpayers whose expected refund is too small in
relation to attorney’s fees and other costs to justify a suit in
District Court or the Court of Federal Claims. See Commissioner
v. Lundy, 516 U.S. 235, 263 (1996) (Thomas, J., dissenting).
Petitioner has properly invoked the jurisdiction of the
Court. By not deciding whether petitioner is entitled to an
overpayment we are leaving an essential issue unaddressed. See
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. at 535. “The consequences of
omitting consideration of this issue might well require
additional hearings and evidence thus placing an undue burden on
the Court as well as the parties.” Id. “If we have jurisdiction
to resolve the * * * issue, we should not ask the taxpayer who
raises that issue at an Appeals Office hearing and in this Court
to go to another court to resolve that issue”. Washington I, 120
T.C. at 134 (Beghe, J., concurring). This is “inconsistent with
the goals of judicial and party economy embodied in the slogan
‘one-stop shopping’.” Id.
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