- 12 -
convinced thereby, the obvious procedure is to follow
the higher court.[7] * * *
V. Application of Section 7502 to a Motion for Leave
To mitigate what they recognize as harsh inequities
resulting from a literal adherence to filing requirements, courts
have, where circumstances permit, generally and wisely managed to
avoid denying a taxpayer his day in court. Wells Marine, Inc. v.
Renegotiation Bd., 54 T.C. 1189, 1192 (1970). The purpose of
section 7502 is to correct hardships caused by the failure of the
mails to function normally. Manchester Group v. Commissioner,
113 F.3d at 1089; see also Bloch v. Commissioner, 254 F.2d 277,
278-279 (9th Cir. 1958). We have historically interpreted
section 7502 so as to adhere to the intentions of Congress. In
Wells Marine, Inc. v. Renegotiation Bd., supra at 1193, we
stated:
We think it is a permissible interpretation of section
7502 that there is included within the meaning of the
phrase ‘any * * * document required to be filed * * *
within a prescribed period * * * under any authority or
provision of the internal revenue laws,’ as used in
section 7502, any such document which is required to be
filed in the Tax Court. * * *
7 Where upon reconsideration of an issue we have adhered to
our position but reversal would appear inevitable because of a
contrary position, squarely on point, of the Court of Appeals to
which an appeal would lie, we have followed the position of that
Court of Appeals. Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757
(1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971). The instant case is
likely appealable to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
which has not addressed the issue presented in Manchester Group.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011