- 17 -
we find respondent’s arguments based on the statutory scheme of
sections 6166 and 6165 to be unpersuasive.
1. “See” Cross-Reference in Section 6166(k)
Respondent’s first argument is that section 6166 itself
precludes judicial review, citing 5 U.S.C. sec. 701(a)(1).
Respondent argues that Congress did not intend to incorporate
section 6165 into section 6166 because section 6166 only cross-
references section 6165. Respondent contends that since there is
no legal effect to the cross-reference under section 7806(a),6
section 6165 is not part of section 6166, and therefore is
outside the scope of our review under section 7479.
Respondent’s argument overlooks section 6166(d), which
provides that once the executor elects the extension under
6166(a), the provisions of the subtitle shall apply as if the
Secretary were granting an extension. Section 6165 applies in
the event that the Secretary grants any extension within which to
pay tax. Therefore, section 6165 is incorporated as a
substantive part of section 6166(a) through (d).
2. Section 7479 and Accompanying Legislative History
Respondent argues that section 7479 gives the Court
jurisdiction to review only a determination with respect to the
6Sec. 7806(a) provides that “The cross references in this
title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law,
where the word ‘see’ is used, are made only for convenience, and
shall be given no legal effect.”
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007