- 7 -
TRHCA’s enactment date, December 20, 2006, and limited the
application of TRHCA section 408 to those taxpayers whose
liability arose or remained unpaid on or after that date. We
perceive this to be a rational basis for the line drawn by
Congress, and we reject petitioner’s argument to the contrary.
Petitioner has also failed to demonstrate that TRHCA section
408 violates her right to due process. Petitioner appears to
argue that TRHCA section 408 offends due process because it was
not made retroactive to a date that would have enabled her to
have her day in court with respect to the fully paid 1995-98
liabilities. Petitioner, however, has provided no support for
her argument. Moreover, a taxpayer who pays a tax in full and
complies with other jurisdictional prerequisites can pursue a
refund action in a U.S. District Court or in the U.S. Court of
Federal Claims. See sec. 7422(a). If petitioner believed that
she should not have been liable for the taxes for 1995-98 that
were reported and fully paid, she could have filed a refund claim
and related litigation. It does not follow from the fact that
petitioner is foreclosed from litigating in this Court because of
a rational decision on Congress’s part to establish an effective
date for TRHCA section 408 that petitioner’s constitutional right
to due process has been violated. We reject petitioner’s due
process argument as meritless.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008