- 11 -
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 747-748 (1984). If the statute is
ambiguous or silent, we may look to the statute’s legislative
history to determine congressional intent. Burlington N. R.R. v.
Okla. Tax Commn., 481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987); Fernandez v.
Commissioner, supra at 329-330.
As indicated, we believe that the relevant statutory
language is clear. Neither party has cited any legislative
history that is inconsistent with the plain language of the
statute and we have found none. The parties have not argued that
a literal application of section 7463(f)(2) produces an absurd
result, and it is certainly not unreasonable for Congress to have
articulated different dollar thresholds for different types of
cases. Indeed, before the enactment of section 7463(f) in
December 2000, there was no provision for using the small tax
case procedure in section 6330 collection cases. We therefore
hold that the $50,000 limit in section 7463(f)(2) refers to the
total amount of unpaid tax which the Commissioner has determined
to collect. The fact that the unpaid tax for each year, period,
or taxable event does not exceed $50,000 is irrelevant.9
As previously indicated, a trial in this case has already
been conducted. Ideally, removal of the small tax case
designation should occur before trial. See Rule 171(c).
9 We express no opinion on the application of the dollar
limit contained in sec. 7463(f)(1) regarding cases under sec.
6015(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011