Tax Collection Authority By The Killer Court
Tax Collection Authority – The Law And Relevant Case Law Examples
The Law: The United States Tax Court is a federal court of record established by Congress under Article I of the United States Constitution. Congress created the Tax Court to provide a judicial forum in which affected persons could dispute tax deficiencies prior to payment of the disputed amount.The jurisdiction of the Tax Court includes the authority to hear tax disputes concerning notices of deficiency, notices of transferee liability, certain types of declaratory judgment, readjustment and adjustment of partnership items, review of the failure to abate interest, administrative costs, worker classification, relief from joint and several liability on a joint return, and review of collection due process actions.Section 7441 provides that “[t]here is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.” Section 7442 provides the “[t]he Tax Court and its divisions shall have such jurisdiction as is conferred on them by this title, by Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, by title II and title III of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 10-87), or by laws enacted subsequent to February 26, 1926.” See also sections 7443-7448.
Relevant Case Law:
Freytag v. Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991) – petitioners alleged that the adjudication of their case by a special trial judge was not authorized by section 7443A, and that the reassignment violated the appointments clause of U.S. Const. art. II, 2, cl. 2. The court of appeals rejected petitioners’ claims and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed, holding that section 7443A(b)(4) authorized the chief judge’s assignment of petitioners’ cases to the special trial judge. The Court further concluded that the special trial judge’s appointment did not violate the Appointments Clause because the Tax Court’s role in the federal judicial scheme closely resembled that of Article I courts, which were given appointment power by the United States Constitution.Knighten v. Commissioner, 705 F.2d 777 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 897 (1983) – petitioner argued that, as a court created under Article I of the Constitution, the Tax Court could not hear any cases that could be heard by Article III courts. The court held that this contention was frivolous and that the argument that the Tax Court violates Article III has been repeatedly rejected.Martin v. Commissioner, 358 F.2d 63 (7th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 385 U.S. 920 (1966) – petitioners’ contention that the Tax Court is without a valid constitutional existence lacks substance and merit.Burns, Stix Friedman & Co., Inc. v. Commissioner, 57 T.C. 392 (1971) – petitioner sought review of income tax deficiencies, prior to the effective date of the Tax Reform Act of 1969 (the Act), Pub. L. 91-172. The petitioner contended that Congress exceeded its authority in creating the court as a court of record under U.S. Const. art I without regard to the sanctions of art. III. The court held that the provisions in the Act that removed the court from the executive branch, made the court a court of record, gave the court the power to punish for contempt, made review of the court’s decisions by appeal rather than by petition for review, and simply recognized the court as a “court,” was within Congress’ authority without reliance upon U.S. Const. art. III.