Though taxpayers may choose to litigate tax matters in a variety of legal settings, outside of bankruptcy, the Tax Court is the only forum in which taxpayers may do so without having first paid the disputed tax in full. Parties who contest the imposition of a tax may also bring an action in any United States District Court, or in the United States Court of Federal Claims; however, these venues require that the tax first be paid and that the party then file suit to recover the contested amount paid (the "full payment rule" of Flora v. United States).[3]
History
The first incarnation of the Tax Court was the "U.S. Board of Tax Appeals", established by Congress in the Revenue Act of 1924[4][5] (also known as the Mellon tax bill) in order to address the increasing complexity of tax-related litigation. Those serving on the Board were simply designated as "members." The members of the Board were empowered to select, on a biennial basis, one of their members as "chairman."[6] In July 1924, President Calvin Coolidge announced the appointment of the first twelve appointees, of which seven were appointed from private life and five from the Bureau of Internal Revenue.[7] Additional members were appointed in the fall, and the Board when fully constituted originally had 16 members, with Charles D. Hamel serving as the first Chairman.[8] The Board was initially established as an "independent agency in the executive branch of the government."[9] It was housed in the Internal Revenue Service Building in the Federal Triangle.[10] The first session of the Board of Tax Appeals spanned July 16, 1924 to May 31, 1925.[11]
In 1929, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Board of Tax Appeals was not a "court," but was instead "an executive or administrative board, upon the decision of which the parties are given an opportunity to base a petition for review to the courts after the administrative inquiry of the Board has been had and decided."[12]
In 1942, Congress passed the Revenue Act of 1942, renaming the Board as the "Tax Court of the United States".[13] With this change, the Members became Judges and the Chairman became the Presiding Judge. By 1956, overcrowding and the desire to separate judicial and executive powers led to initial attempts to relocate the court. In 1962, Secretary of the TreasuryDouglas Dillon appealed to the General Services Administration (GSA) to incorporate funds for the design of a new building in its upcoming budget. The GSA allocated $450,000, and commissioned renowned architect Victor A. Lundy, who produced a design that was approved in 1966.[10] However, funding constraints brought on by the Vietnam War delayed the start of construction until 1972.[10]
The Tax Court was again renamed to its current formal designation in the Tax Reform Act of 1969,[14] changing it from an historically administrative court to a full judicial court. The completed United States Tax Court Building was dedicated on November 22, 1974, the fiftieth anniversary of the Revenue Act that created the court.[10]
In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court in Freytag v. Commissioner stated that the current United States Tax Court is an "Article I legislative court" that "exercises a portion of the judicial power of the United States."[15] The Court explained the Tax Court "exercises judicial power to the exclusion of any other function" and that it "exercises its judicial power in much the same way as the federal district courts exercise theirs."[16] This "exclusively judicial role distinguishes it from other non-Article III tribunals that perform multiple functions."[17] Thus, Freytag concluded that the Tax Court exercises "judicial, rather than executive, legislative, or administrative, power."[18] The Tax Court "remains independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches" in the sense that its decisions are not subject to appellate review by Congress, the President, or for that matter, Article III district courts.[17] The President, however, may remove Tax Court judges, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for "inefficiency," "neglect of duty," or "malfeasance in office."[19]
Justice Scalia penned a separate concurrence for four justices in Freytag. These justices dissented as to the Court majority's rationale; they would have characterized the Tax Court's power as "executive" rather than "judicial."[20] Scalia said that to him "it seem[ed]... entirely obvious that the Tax Court, like the Internal Revenue Service, the FCC, and the NLRB, exercises executive power."[21] Notwithstanding Scalia's sharp dissents in landmark separation-of-powers cases such as Mistretta v. United States[22] and Morrison v. Olson,[23] Scalia apparently "describe[d] Freytag as the single worst opinion of his incumbency" on the U.S. Supreme Court.[24]
Although the 2008 U.S. government directory of executive and legislative appointed officers ("the Plum Book") categorized the Tax Court as part of the legislative branch,[25] the 2012 revised version removed the Tax Court and listed it under neither the legislative nor the executive branches.[26]
Under an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 enacted in late 2015, the U.S. Tax Court "is not an agency of, and shall be independent of, the executive branch of the Government."[27] However, section 7443(f) of the Code still provides that a Tax Court judge may be removed by the President "for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office".[28]
Jurisdiction of the Tax Court
The Tax Court provides a judicial forum in which affected persons can dispute tax deficiencies determined by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue prior to payment of the disputed amounts. The jurisdiction of the Tax Court includes, but is not limited to the authority to hear:[citation needed]
Congress amended the Internal Revenue Code, now codified in Internal Revenue Code section 7482, providing that decisions of the Tax Court may be reviewed by the applicable geographical United States Court of Appeals other than the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.[29] (See Article I and Article III tribunals).
"Small Tax Cases" are conducted under Internal Revenue Code section 7463, and generally involve amounts in controversy of $50,000 or less for any one tax year.[30] The "Small Tax Case" procedure is available "at the option of the taxpayer."[30] These cases are neither appealable nor precedential.[31]
At times there have been efforts in Congress and the Tax Bar to create a single national Court of Appeals for tax cases (or make Tax Court decisions appealable to a single existing Court of Appeals), to maintain uniformity in the application of the nation's tax laws (the very reason underlying the creation of the Tax Court and the grant of national jurisdiction to the Tax Court), but efforts to avoid "hometown results" or inconsistent results due to a lack of expertise have failed.[citation needed]
An important reason for the movements to create a single national Court of Appeals for tax cases is that the United States Tax Court does not have exclusive jurisdiction over tax cases. In addition to the Tax Court, federal tax matters can be heard and decided in three other courts: U.S. District Courts, the Court of Federal Claims, and the Bankruptcy Court.[32] In the first two instances, the taxpayer bringing the claim generally must have first paid the deficiency determined by the IRS.[33] For the Bankruptcy Court, the tax matter must arise as an issue in a bankruptcy proceeding.[34] Bankruptcy Court appeals are initially to the U.S. District Court.[34] Appeals beyond the U.S. District Courts and the Court of Federal Claims follow the same path as those from the U.S. Tax Court as described above.[34]
With this number of courts involved in making legal determinations on federal tax matters, some observers express concern that the tax laws can be interpreted differently for like cases.[35]
Representation of parties
The Chief Counsel of the Internal Revenue Service or his delegate represents the executive branch in the Tax Court.[36] The Tax Court permits persons who are not attorneys to be admitted to practice (to represent taxpayers) by applying for admission and passing an examination administered by the Court. Attorneys who provide evidence of membership and good standing in a state bar or the D.C. bar can be admitted to the bar of the Court without sitting for the Tax Court examination. Tax Court practice is highly specialized and most practitioners are licensed attorneys who specialize in tax controversies.[citation needed]
Genesis of a Tax Court dispute
Many Tax Court cases involve disputes over federal income tax and penalties, often after an examination by the Internal Revenue Service of a taxpayer's return. After issuance of a series of preliminary written notices and a lack of agreement between the taxpayer and the IRS, the IRS formally "determines" the amount of the "deficiency" and issues a formal notice called a "statutory notice of deficiency," or "ninety day letter".[37] In this context, the term "deficiency" is a legal term of art, and is not necessarily equal to the amount of unpaid tax (although it usually is). The deficiency is generally the excess of the amount the IRS contends is the correct tax over the amount the taxpayer showed on the return—in both cases, without regard to how much has actually been paid.[38]
Upon issuance of the statutory notice of deficiency (after IRS determination of the tax amount, but before the formal IRS assessment of the tax), the taxpayer generally has 90 days to file a Tax Court petition for "redetermination of the deficiency".[39] If no petition is timely filed, the IRS may then statutorily "assess" the tax. To "assess" the tax in this sense means to administratively and formally record the tax on the books of the United States Department of the Treasury.[40] This formal statutory assessment is a critical act, as the statutory tax lien that later arises is effective retroactively to the date of the assessment, and encumbers all property and rights to property of the taxpayer.[41]
Life cycle of a Tax Court case
Because of the negative legal consequences ensuing with respect to a statutory assessment (especially the tax lien and the Flora requirement that the taxpayer otherwise pay the full disputed amount and sue for refund), a taxpayer is often well advised to file a Tax Court petition in a timely manner. The rule in the Tax Court is that the taxpayer sues the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue," with the taxpayer as "petitioner" and the Commissioner as "respondent." This rule is an example of an exception to the general rule that the proper partydefendant in a tax case filed by a taxpayer against the federal government is "United States of America". In the Tax Court, the Commissioner is not named personally. The "Secretary of the Treasury", the "Department of the Treasury" and the "Internal Revenue Service" are not proper parties.
The petition must be timely filed within the allowable time. The Court cannot extend the time for filing, which is set by statute. A $60 filing fee must be paid when the petition is filed. Once the petition is filed, payment of the underlying tax ordinarily is postponed until the case has been decided. In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, taxpayers may elect to have the case conducted under the Court's simplified small tax case procedure.[42] Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition. However, decisions entered pursuant to small tax case procedures are not appealable and are not precedential.
Cases are calendared for trial as soon as practicable (on a first in/first out basis) after the case becomes at issue. When a case is calendared, the parties are notified by the Court of the date, time, and place of trial. Trials are conducted before one judge, without a jury, and taxpayers are permitted to represent themselves if they desire. However, the vast majority of cases are settled by mutual agreement without the necessity of a trial. However, if a trial is conducted, in due course a report is ordinarily issued by the presiding judge setting forth findings of fact and an opinion. The case is then closed in accordance with the judge's opinion by entry of a decision.
Appellate review
Either the petitioner (the taxpayer) or the respondent (the Commissioner of Internal Revenue) may take an appeal from an adverse decision of the Tax Court to the appropriate United States Court of Appeals. In the case of an appeal by the taxpayer, a bond is normally required in order to avoid enforcement action during the pendency of the appeal.[43] Instead of taking an appeal, the Internal Revenue Service may issue an "Action on Decision" indicating the Commissioner's "non-acquiescence" in the decision, meaning that the Commissioner will not follow the decision in subsequent cases.[44] In such cases, the Commissioner hopes for the opportunity to litigate the matter in another circuit where he will have a better chance of obtaining reversal on appeal.[citation needed]
Judges
The Tax Court is composed of 19 judges appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.[45] Former judges whose terms have ended may become "senior judges", able to return and assist the court by hearing cases while serving on recall. In addition, the court is assisted by a number of "special trial judges", who are employees of the court, appointed by the chief judge of the Tax Court, rather than by the President.[46] Special trial judges serve a function similar to that served by United States magistrate judges of the district courts, and may hear cases regarding alleged deficiencies or overpayments of up to $50,000.[47] Reappointment, when requested by a Tax Court judge (I.R.C. 7447(b)(3)) is generally pro forma regardless of the political party of the appointing President and the political party of the re-appointing (sitting) President.[citation needed] Each active judge appointed by the President has two law clerks (attorney-advisers) and each senior judge and special trial judge has one law clerk.
President George W. Bush was heavily criticized by the U.S. Congress, the Tax Bar, and others when he indicated that he likely would not, or might not, re-appoint Tax Court judges whose terms were expiring (even though the first judge whose re-appointment President Bush called into question, Judge John O. Colvin, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan).[citation needed] President Bill Clinton also was criticized for not acting timely to re-appoint Tax Court judges, having allowed one sitting Chief Judge's term to expire, thus requiring the Tax Court to elect a new Chief Judge. Additionally, several Tax Court judges had to wait more than a year (sometimes more than two years) to be reappointed during the Clinton presidency.[citation needed]
Trial sessions are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by its judges, by senior judges serving on recall, and by special trial judges. All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws, and are tasked to "apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed only what they owe, and no more". Although the "principal office" of the Court is located in the District of Columbia, Tax Court judges may sit "at any place within the United States".[48] The judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various designated cities. The work of the Tax Court has occasionally been interrupted by events. In 2001, a trial session in New York City was canceled due to the September 11 terrorist attacks. In 2005, stops in Miami and New Orleans were canceled due to the effects of hurricanes which had struck shortly before their scheduled visit to each city.[citation needed]
The Tax Court's judges serve 15-year terms, subject to presidential removal during the term for "[I]nefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."[49] The mandatory retirement age for judges is 70.[50] The judges' salaries are set at the same rate as "[J]udges of the district courts of the United States",[51] currently $210,900 annually.[52]
The court has 19 seats for active judges, numbered in the order in which they were initially filled. Judges who assume senior status enter a kind of retirement in which they remain on the bench but vacate their seats, thus allowing the U.S. President to appoint new judges to fill their seats.
Seat 1
Established on June 2, 1924 by the Revenue Act of 1924 as a member of the Board of Tax Appeals
^ abcMilliken, Murdock and Van Fossan succeeded original board members Graupner, Ivins and James, but as they were appointed as a group, it is unclear who succeeded whom.
^488 U.S. 361, 427 (1989) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (stating that the Court "fails to recognize that this case is not about commingling, but about the creation of a new Branch altogether, a sort of junior varsity Congress.").
^487 U.S. 654, 697 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting) ("Frequently an issue of this sort will come before the Court clad, so to speak, in sheep's clothing: the potential of the asserted principle to effect important change in the equilibrium of power is not immediately evident, and must be discerned by a careful and perceptive analysis. But this wolf comes as a wolf.").
^Peter L. Strauss, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, 62 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 51, 57 (2009) (reporting hearing this comment firsthand).
^United States Policy and Supporting Positions, page 2. Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, United States Senate, 110th Congress, 2d Session (November 12, 2008). Available: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/plumbook/2008/index.html.
^Section 441, Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (December 18, 2015) (text added at the end of section 7441 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).
^See 26 U.S.C.§ 7463(b), which states: "A decision entered in any case in which the proceedings are conducted under this section shall not be reviewed in any other court and shall not be treated as a precedent for any other case."
^ abcSee Steve R. Johnson, "The Phoenix and the Perils of the Second Best: Why Heightened Appellate Deference to Tax Court Decisions is Undesirable," 77 Oregon Law Review, 235, 239–242 (Spring 1998) for a review of federal court jurisdiction including, especially, as to the Bankruptcy Court.
^See Johnson, op.cit.; David F. Shores, "Deferential Review of Tax Court Decisions: Dobson Revisited," 49 Tax Lawyer, 629 (Spring 1996); David F. Shores, "Rethinking Deferential Review of Tax Court Decisions," 53 Tax Lawyer 35 (Fall 1999); and Andre Smith, "Deferential Reviews of Tax Court Decisions of Law: Promoting Expertise, Uniformity, and Impartiality," 58 Tax Lawyer 361, for a useful exchange on different views of the matter.
^26 U.S.C.§ 7452. Although, as explained below, the "Commissioner of Internal Revenue" is the proper party to be sued in Tax Court, the statute actually states that the "Secretary" is represented by the IRS Chief Counsel (or delegate). However, the term "Secretary" is defined in 26 U.S.C.§ 7701(a)(11)(B) as the "Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate." Further, the term "or his delegate" is defined (in this context) at 26 U.S.C.§ 7701(a)(12)(A)(i) as "any officer, employee or agency of the Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury directly, or indirectly by one or more redelegations of authority [ . . . . ]"
Some information on this page is from the web site of the U.S. Tax Court, which, as a publication of the United States government, is in the public domain.
1994 SNES video game 1994 video gameThe Flintstones: The Treasure of Sierra MadrockNorth American cover artDeveloper(s)Taito GamesPublisher(s)TaitoProducer(s)Hanna-Barbera CartoonsDesigner(s)S. SakakibaraMidori Tokutomi[2]Composer(s)N. Furukawa[3] Kennosuke SuemuraPlatform(s)SNES[1]ReleaseJP: August 12, 1994[1]NA: March 1994EU: June 23, 1994Genre(s)Action Platform[1]Mode(s)Single-player, multiplayer The Flintstones: The Treasure of Sierra Madrock is a 1994…
Football match2014 FIFA Club World Cup finalThe Stade de Marrakech staged the finalEvent2014 FIFA Club World Cup Real Madrid San Lorenzo 2 0 Date20 December 2014 (2014-12-20)VenueStade de Marrakech, MarrakeshMan of the MatchSergio Ramos (Real Madrid)RefereeWalter López (Guatemala)Attendance38,345WeatherClear night18 °C (64 °F)59% humidity← 2013 2015 → The 2014 FIFA Club World Cup final was the final match of the 2014 FIFA Club World Cup, a football tournam…
Provinsi Iwami (石見国code: ja is deprecated , iwami no kuni) adalah provinsi lama Jepang yang berada di wilayah yang sekarang menjadi bagian barat prefektur Shimane. Iwami berbatasan dengan provinsi Aki, Bingo, Izumo, Nagato, dan provinsi Suo. Ibu kota berada di kota yang sekarang disebut Hamada. Di zaman Sengoku, wilayah Iwami dikuasai klan Mōri yang berkedudukan di provinsi tetangga Aki. lbsProvinsi lama Jepang Aki Awa (Kanto) Awa (Shikoku) Awaji Bingo Bitchu Bizen Bungo Buzen Chikugo Chi…
Hiten TejwaniLahir5 Maret 1974 (umur 50)Mumbai, IndiaPekerjaanModel AktorTahun aktif2000–sekarangSuami/istriGauri Pradhan Tejwani (m. 2004)AnakNeevan Tejwani (2009) Katya Tejwani (2009) Hitten Tejwani (lahir 5 Maret 1974) adalah aktor televisi India dari Mumbai, dikenal karena penggambarannya dalam serial seperti Kyunki Saas Bhi Kabhi Bahu Thi, Kutumb dan Pavitra Rishta. Pada 2017, ia menjadi kontestan di Bigg Boss.[1] Kehidupan awal Tej…
Destiny's ChildAlbum studio karya Destiny's ChildDirilis17 Februari 1998[1]Direkam1997–1998GenreR&B, pop, teen pop, dance-popDurasi56:11LabelColumbiaProduserCraig B., Sylvia Bennett-Smith, Jerry Duplessis, Jermaine Dupri, Rob Fusari, Che Greene, Vincent Herbert, Wyclef Jean, KLC, Jay Lincoln, Mark Morales, O'Dell, Cory Rooney, Terry T., Tim & Bob, Carl Washington, D'Wayne WigginsKronologi Destiny's Child Destiny's Child(1998) The Writing's on the Wall(1999)String Module Err…
Uttar Pradesh negara bagian di India उत्तर प्रदेश (hi)اتر پردیش (ur) Tempat <mapframe>: Judul India/Uttar Pradesh.map .map bukan merupakan halaman data peta yang sahcategoria:Articles mancats de coordenades NegaraIndia NegaraIndia Ibu kotaLucknow Kota terbesarKanpurPembagian administratifBareilly division (en) Agra division (en) Prayagraj division (en) Saharanpur division (en) Kanpur division (en) Devipatan division (en) Gorakhpur division (en) Basti division …
Huang XianfanHuang Xianfan (1932)Lahir(1899-11-13)13 November 1899Fusui, Guangxi Meninggal18 Januari 1982(1982-01-18) (umur 82)Guilin, Guangxi KebangsaanRRTAlmamaterSekolah Normal ketiga Nanning(1922-1926)Universitas Normal Beijing(1926-1935)Universitas Kekaisaran Tokyo(1935-1937)Dikenal atas pendiri Sekolah Bagui*pendiri Studi Zhuang*pendiri Sekolah Wunu*pendiri Universitas Lijian Karier ilmiahBidangHistoriografi, Etnologi, Antropologi, Folklor, Linguistik, Zhuangologi (atau Studi Zhuang)I…
Jalan bebas hambatan terkendali Jingcheng dekat Gaoliying, Juli 2004. Jalan bebas hambatan terkendali Beijing yang pertama dibuka adalah rute Beijing-Tianjin-Tangzhou pada 1991. Hingga akhir 2015, Beijing telah membangun total 982 kilometer jalan bebas hambatan terkendali dengan tingkat kepadatan 5,85 kilometer/100 kilometer dan menempati peringkat ke-6 nasional setelah Shanghai, Hainan, Tibet, Hong Kong dan Makau.[1] Referensi ^ 2015年全国高速公路通车里程一览表. 中国高…
Adding vehicle license plates IndianaCurrent seriesSize12 in × 6 in30 cm × 15 cmMaterialAluminumSerial format123A123AB123ABCIntroducedJanuary 1, 2017 (2017-01-01)AvailabilityIssued byIndiana Bureau of Motor VehiclesHistoryFirst issuedJuly 1, 1913 (1913-07-01)(pre-state plates from 1905 to June 30, 1913)vte The U.S. state of Indiana first required its residents to register their motor vehicles in 1905. Registrants provided their own li…
Bentrokan armada GazaMV Mavi Marmara sedang meninggalkan Antalya dan menuju Gaza.LokasiPerairan internasional dekat Jalur GazaTanggal31 Mei 2010 (2010-05-31) 04:00[1] (UTC+3)Korban tewas8 penumpang Turki dan 1 penumpang Turki-Amerika[2][3]Korban lukabeberapa puluh penumpang dan 11 tentara Pasukan Pertahanan Israel (IDF).[4] Bentrokan armada Gaza terjadi pada tanggal 31 Mei 2010 antara AL Israel dengan beberapa kelompok aktivis pro-Palestina, di sebuah bagian …
Galeri BorgheseGalleria BorgheseDidirikan1903LokasiVilla Borghese, Roma, ItaliaDirekturAnna ColivaSitus webwww.galleriaborghese.beniculturali.it Galeri Borghese (Italia: 'Galleria Borghese') adalah sebuah galeri seni di Roma, Italia, berada di bekas Villa Borghese Pinciana. Koleksi Tingkat Tinggi Patung karya Gian Lorenzo Bernini. sekitar 1645-1652 Pauline Bonaparte karya Antonio Canova. Apollo dan Daphne karya Gian Lorenzo Bernini. sekitar 1622 Rape dari Proserpina karya Gian Lorenzo Bernini. s…
Peta Lokasi Kabupaten Pringsewu di Lampung Berikut ini adalah daftar kecamatan dan kelurahan/desa di kabupaten Pringsewu, Provinsi Lampung, Indonesia. Kabupaten Pringsewu terdiri dari 9 kecamatan, 5 kelurahan, dan 128 pekon (desa). Pada tahun 2017, jumlah penduduknya mencapai 421.180 jiwa dengan luas wilayah 625,00 km² dan sebaran penduduk 673 jiwa/km².[1][2] Daftar kecamatan dan kelurahan di Kabupaten Pringsewu, adalah sebagai berikut: Kode Kemendagri Kecamatan Jumlah Keluraha…
Lokasi Masjid terkait dengan benteng dan istana Ázm Bab al-Jabiyah (Arab: بَابُ الْجَابِيَّةِ, romanized: Bāb al-Jābīyahcode: ar is deprecated ; Gate of the Water Trough) adalah salah satu air dari tujuh gerbang kota kuno yang berada di Damaskus, Suriah. Selama era Romawi, gerbang itu didedikasikan untuk Mars.[1] Bab al-Jabiya adalah pintu masuk utama yang ada di sisi barat kota. Gerbang itu berada di Midhat Pasha Souq (bazar) yang mana merupakan bagian dari st…
Artikel ini sebatang kara, artinya tidak ada artikel lain yang memiliki pranala balik ke halaman ini.Bantulah menambah pranala ke artikel ini dari artikel yang berhubungan atau coba peralatan pencari pranala.Tag ini diberikan pada Oktober 2022. Noel Evelyn Norris (25 Desember 1918 - 15 Februari 2014) adalah pendidik berkewarganegaraan Singapura yang dikenal terkait erat dengan Raffles Girls' Primary School. Norris adalah kepala sekolah Crescent Girls' School. Norris adalah relawan di Angkatan Ud…