- 23 -
Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. at 557. In Mueller
II, and in each of the subsequent cases in which we have applied
equitable recoupment, we held that our jurisdiction to
redetermine the disputed deficiency provided the basis for the
Court to consider affirmative defenses, including equitable
recoupment. See Estate of Branson v. Commissioner, supra at 12;
Estate of Bartels v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 430 (1996); Estate of
Orenstein v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-150. In this light,
our authority to consider a claim of equitable recoupment is
merely ancillary to our jurisdiction to redetermine a tax
deficiency and does not unduly expand upon that jurisdiction.
In sum, we conclude there is no requirement in section
6214(b) that, in applying the doctrine of equitable recoupment,
we have original or subject matter jurisdiction over the tax that
the Commissioner or the taxpayer seeks to apply as an offset
against a claimed deficiency or refund. We hold that, if our
jurisdiction is properly invoked upon the filing of a petition
for redetermination of a deficiency, we may apply the doctrine in
respect of any tax imposed under the Internal Revenue Code so
long as the elements necessary to support a claim of equitable
recoupment are established.
B. Application of the Equitable Recoupment Doctrine to the
Facts of This Case
Respondent does not dispute that the elements of equitable
recoupment are present in these cases. See supra p. 15.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008