- 21 -
Section 6330(d) broadly gives the Tax Court jurisdiction “with
respect to such matter” as constitutes the subject of the
taxpayer’s appeal from an Appeals Office determination, at least
so long as the underlying tax liability is of a type over which
the Tax Court has jurisdiction (as it is in the instant case).
This jurisdictional grant encompasses review of a jeopardy levy,
such is at issue here. See Dorn v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 356
(2002). In the exercise of this jurisdiction, this Court has the
authority to review for error respondent’s compliance with
petitioners’ request to sell the seized stock, inasmuch as this
matter is properly part of the subject of petitioners’ appeal
from the administrative determination. It would be anomalous if
this Court’s authority were limited to finding such error and did
not extend to redressing it.14
Whether the Equitable Remedy Provided in Zapara I Was Appropriate
In Zapara I, we treated respondent as having assumed the
risk of loss with respect to the stock by failing to adhere to
14 This Court has recognized limits to its ability to
provide relief in sec. 6330 collection cases. For instance, in
Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1 (2006), this Court
held that it lacks jurisdiction in a sec. 6330 proceeding to
determine an overpayment or to order a refund or credit of taxes
paid. The decision in Greene-Thapedi was predicated partly on a
long jurisdictional history that militated against this Court’s
assuming refund jurisdiction without express legislative
provision and partly on the absence in sec. 6330 of limitations
corresponding to the limitations in sec. 6511 on claims for
credits or refunds of overpayments of tax. Such concerns are not
presented by the instant case, which does not involve any claim
of an overpayment of taxes and does not involve any refund or
credit with respect to an overpayment of taxes.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011