{"id":9870,"date":"2017-11-28T05:55:49","date_gmt":"2017-11-28T05:55:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9870"},"modified":"2017-11-28T17:21:47","modified_gmt":"2017-11-28T17:21:47","slug":"u-s-tax-court-a-trial-court-to-expeditiously-resolve-disputes-between-taxpayers-and-the-internal-revenue-service","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/reunitethestates.org\/?page_id=9870","title":{"rendered":"U.S. Tax Court – a trial court to expeditiously resolve disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service"},"content":{"rendered":"

Mission Statement:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0“The mission of the United States Tax Court<\/a> is to provide a national forum to expeditiously resolve disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service while carefully considering the merits of each case and ensuring the uniform interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code.\u00a0 The Court is committed to providing taxpayers, most of whom are self-represented, with a convenient place of trial and, when their disputes involve relatively small amounts of tax dollars, simplified procedures.<\/span>“<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0The United States Tax Court<\/a> is a court of record established by Congress under Article I of the\u00a0U.S. Constitution<\/a>.\u00a0 \u00a0When the Commissioner of Internal Revenue<\/a> has determined a tax deficiency, the taxpayer may dispute the deficiency in the Tax Court<\/a> before paying any disputed amount.\u00a0 The Tax Court\u2019s jurisdiction also includes the authority to redetermine transferee liability, make certain types of declaratory judgments, adjust partnership items, order abatement of interest, award administrative and litigation costs, redetermine worker classification, determine relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, review certain collection actions, and review awards to whistleblowers who provide information to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue<\/a> on or after December 20, 2006.<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0The Tax Court<\/a> is composed of\u00a019 presidentially appointed members<\/a>.\u00a0 Trial sessions are conducted and other work of the Court is performed by those judges, by\u00a0senior judges<\/a>\u00a0serving on recall, and by\u00a0special trial judges<\/a>.\u00a0 All of the judges have expertise in the tax laws and apply that expertise in a manner to ensure that taxpayers are assessed only what they owe, and no more. Although the Court is physically located in Washington, D.C., the judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various\u00a0designated cities<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Life Cycle of a Tax Court Case:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A case in the Tax Court<\/a> is commenced by the filing of a petition.\u00a0 The petition must be timely filed within the allowable time.\u00a0 The Court cannot extend the time for filing which is set by statute.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0A $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.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In certain tax disputes involving $50,000 or less, taxpayers may elect to have their case conducted under the Court’s simplified\u00a0small tax case<\/a>\u00a0procedure.\u00a0 Trials in small tax cases generally are less formal and result in a speedier disposition.\u00a0 However, decisions entered pursuant to small tax case procedures are not appealable.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Cases are calendared for trial as soon as practicable (on a first in\/ first out basis) after the case becomes at issue.\u00a0 When a case is calendared, the parties are notified by the Court of the date, time, and place of trial.\u00a0 Trials are conducted before one judge, without a jury, and taxpayers are permitted to represent themselves if they desire.\u00a0 Taxpayers may be represented by practitioners admitted to the bar of the Tax Court.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Most cases are settled by mutual agreement without trial.\u00a0 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.\u00a0 The case is then closed in accordance with the judge’s opinion by entry of a decision.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

*****************************<\/p>\n

Official Website
\nUnited States Tax Court<\/span><\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

*****************************<\/p>\n

Rules of The Tax Court<\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n

*****************************<\/p>\n

Brief History of the Tax Court:<\/span><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

The first incarnation of the Tax Court was the “U.S. Board of Tax Appeals”, established by Congress in the\u00a0Revenue Act of 1924<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0[2] [3]\u00a0(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.”<\/strong> [4]\u00a0\u00a0The Board originally had 16 members, with Charles D. Hamel serving as the first Chairman.<\/strong> [5]\u00a0\u00a0The Board was initially established as an “independent agency in the executive branch of the government.<\/strong> [6]\u00a0\u00a0It was housed in the\u00a0Internal Revenue Service Building<\/a>\u00a0in the\u00a0Federal Triangle<\/a>. [7]\u00a0\u00a0The first session of the Board of Tax Appeals spanned July 16, 1924 to May 31, 1925.<\/strong> [8]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In 1929, the United States Supreme Court indicated 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\u00a0petition for review<\/a>\u00a0to the courts after the administrative inquiry of the Board has been had and decided.<\/strong> [9]<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In 1942, Congress passed the\u00a0Revenue Act of 1942<\/a>, renaming the Board as the “Tax Court of the United States.”<\/strong> [10]\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0With 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,\u00a0Secretary of the Treasury<\/a>\u00a0Douglas Dillon<\/a>\u00a0appealed to the U.S.\u00a0General Services Administration<\/a>\u00a0(GSA) to incorporate funds for the design of a new building in its upcoming budget. The GSA allocated $450,000, and commissioned renowned architect\u00a0Victor A. Lundy<\/a>, who produced a design that was approved in 1966.<\/strong> [11]\u00a0 However, funding constraints brought on by the\u00a0Vietnam War<\/a>\u00a0delayed the start of construction until 1972.<\/strong> [12]\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0The Tax Court was again renamed to its current formal designation in the\u00a0Tax Reform Act of 1969<\/a>,<\/strong> [13]\u00a0changing it from an historically administrative court to a full judicial court. The completed\u00a0United States Tax Court Building<\/a>\u00a0was dedicated on November 22, 1974, the fiftieth anniversary of the Revenue Act that created the court.<\/strong> [14]<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0In 1991, the U.S. Supreme Court in\u00a0Freytag v. Commissioner<\/i>\u00a0stated 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.<\/strong> [15]\u00a0\u00a0The 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….”<\/strong> [16]\u00a0\u00a0This “exclusively judicial role distinguishes it from other non-Article III tribunals that perform multiple functions…<\/span>“<\/strong> [17] Thus,\u00a0Freytag<\/i>\u00a0concluded that the Tax Court exercises “judicial, rather than executive, legislative, or administrative, power.<\/span>“<\/strong> [18]\u00a0\u00a0<\/sup>\u00a0The Tax Court “remains independent of the Executive and Legislative Branches<\/span>” in the sense that its decisions are not subject to appellate review by Congress, the President, or for that matter, Article III district courts.<\/strong> [17]\u00a0 The President, however, may remove the Tax Court judges, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, for “inefficiency,” “neglect of duty,” or “malfeasance in office.”<\/strong> [19]<\/span><\/sup><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0Justice Scalia penned a separate concurrence for four justices in\u00a0Freytag<\/i>.\u00a0 These justices dissented as to the Court majority’s rationale; they would have characterized the Tax Court’s power as “executive” rather than “judicial.”<\/strong> [20]\u00a0 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.”<\/strong> [21]<\/sup>\u00a0 Notwithstanding Scalia’s sharp dissents in landmark separation-of-powers cases such as\u00a0Mistretta v. United States <\/i><\/strong>[22]\u00a0<\/i><\/sup>and\u00a0Morrison v. Olson<\/i>,<\/strong> [23]<\/sup>\u00a0Scalia apparently “describe[d]\u00a0Freytag<\/i>\u00a0as the single worst opinion of his incumbency<\/span>” on the U.S. Supreme Court.<\/strong> [24]<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Although 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,<\/strong> [25]<\/sup>\u00a0the 2012 revised version removed the Tax Court and listed it under neither the legislative nor the executive branches.<\/strong> [26]<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Under 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.<\/span>“<\/strong> [27]<\/sup>\u00a0However, 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.<\/span>“<\/strong>\u00a0[28]\u00a0<\/sup><\/span><\/p>\n

Pictured Below:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0Photo of 30th President Calvin Coolidge signing the income tax bill, also known as the Mellon tax bill, on February 26, 1926.\u00a0 Also shown is Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon<\/a> and Director of the Budget General Herbert Mayhew Lord<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Special thanks to\u00a0National Photo Company Collection<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0The McMahan Art Gallery and Archive<\/a>\u00a0for the above photo we’re utilizing in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

References:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Disclaimer:<\/span><\/span><\/strong> All material throughout this website is pertinent to people everywhere, and is being utilized in accordance with Fair Use<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[1]: U.S. Tax Court:\u00a0https:\/\/www.ustaxcourt.gov\/<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

[2]:\u00a0Richard A. Levine, Theodore D. Peyser & David A. Weintraub,\u00a0Tax Court Litigation<\/i>, Tax Management Portfolio, Volume 630, Bloomberg BNA (4th ed. 2012).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[3]:\u00a0Revenue Act of 1924, sec. 900, Ch. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 336 et seq. (June 2, 1924).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[4]:\u00a0Revenue Act of 1924, sec. 900(d), Ch. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 337 (June 2, 1924).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[5]:\u00a0Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, Volume 1, p. 3 (Government Printing Office, 1926)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[6]:\u00a0Revenue Act of 1924, sec. 900(k), Ch. 234, 43 Stat. 253, 338 (June 2, 1924).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[7]:\u00a0U.S. Tax Court Building<\/a>, U.S. General Services Administration, accessed September 13, 2009.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[8]:\u00a0 Reports of the United States Board of Tax Appeals, Volume 1, p. 1 (Government Printing Office, 1926)<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[9]:\u00a0Old Colony Trust Co. v. Commissioner<\/i>, 279 U.S. 716 (1929), at\u00a0[1]<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[10]:\u00a0Revenue Act of 1942, sec. 504(a), Pub. L. 753, Ch. 619, 56 Stat. 798, 957 (Oct. 21, 1942).<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

[11]:\u00a0U.S. Tax Court Building<\/a>, U.S. General Services Administration, accessed September 13, 2009.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[12]:\u00a0U.S. Tax Court Building<\/a>, U.S. General Services Administration, accessed September 13, 2009.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[13]:\u00a0Federal Specialty Courts<\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[14]:\u00a0U.S. Tax Court Building<\/a>, U.S. General Services Administration, accessed September 13, 2009.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[15]:\u00a0501 U.S. 868, 891 (1991), at\u00a0https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1508365253681917692&q=Freytag+commissioner&hl=en&as_sdt=3,44<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[16]:\u00a0d.<\/i>\u00a0at 891<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[17]:\u00a0Id.<\/i>\u00a0at 892<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[18]:\u00a0Id.<\/i>\u00a0at 890-91<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[19]:\u00a0See\u00a026 U.S.C.<\/a>\u00a0\u00a7\u00a07443<\/a>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[20]:\u00a0501 U.S. 868, 912 (1991), at\u00a0https:\/\/scholar.google.com\/scholar_case?case=1508365253681917692&q=Freytag+commissioner&hl=en&as_sdt=3,44<\/a>. (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[21]:\u00a0Id<\/i><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[22]:\u00a0488 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.”).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[23]:\u00a0487 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.”).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[24]:\u00a0Peter L. Strauss,\u00a0Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board<\/i>, 62 Vand. L. Rev. En Banc 51, 57 (2009) (reporting hearing this comment firsthand).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[25]:\u00a0United States\u00a0Policy and Supporting Positions<\/i>, page 2. Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, United States Senate, 110th Congress, 2d Session (Nov. 12, 2008). Available:\u00a0http:\/\/www.gpoaccess.gov\/plumbook\/2008\/index.html<\/a><\/i>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[26]:\u00a0United States\u00a0Policy and Supporting Positions<\/i>. Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, United States House, 112th Congress, 2d Session (Dec. 1, 2012). Available:\u00a0http:\/\/www.gpo.gov\/fdsys\/pkg\/GPO-PLUMBOOK-2012\/content-detail.html<\/a><\/i>.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

[27]:\u00a0Section 441, Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015, Division Q of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Dec. 18, 2015) (text added at the end of section 7441 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986).<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Note:<\/span> Information from footnotes 2-27 transcribed from Wikipedia page<\/a> on 11-28-2017.<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

******************************************<\/span><\/p>\n

Back to Legislative Courts<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

All Federal Courts<\/a>
\nhistories, purposes, and functions<\/em><\/a><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Simplified<\/span><\/em><\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

All Federal Rules of Procedure Simplified<\/em><\/span><\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Intro to Law<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Like this website?<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

Please Support Our Fundraiser<\/a><\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

or donate via\u00a0PayPal<\/a>:<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n