Westcott v. Commissioner
This text of 1980 T.C. Memo. 144 (Westcott v. Commissioner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Tax Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
*439 Ps filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the ground that under the U.S. Constitution, the Congress was not permitted to entrust to this Court jurisdiction over matters arising under the Federal tax laws. They offered no evidence to refute the deficiencies determined by the Commissioner.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
SIMPSON, *440
| Additions to Tax | ||||
| Sec. 6651(a) | Sec. 6653(a) | |||
| Petitioner | Year | Deficiency | 2 I.R.C. 1954 | I.R.C. |
| 1954 | ||||
| K. Kenneth Westcott | ||||
| and Judith E. | ||||
| Westcott | 1975 | $1,044.00 | ||
| Judith E. Westcott | 1976 | 412.00 | $102.00 | $21.00 |
| K. Kenneth Westcott | 1976 | 1,547.00 | 277.00 | 77.00 |
The only issue to be decided is whether this Court has jurisdiction over this case.
The petitioners, K. Kenneth Westcott and Judith E. Westcott, husband and wife, maintained their legal residence in Colorado Springs, Colo., when they filed their petitions in this case. They timely filed a joint Federal income tax return for 1975 with the Internal Revenue Service. They also filed with the IRS a joint Form 1040 for 1976, but on the form, they disclosed no information concerning their income or deductions.
In his notice of deficiency for 1975, the Commissioner determined that the petitioners were not entitled to several deductions*441 claimed by them on their return for that year. In his notices of deficiency for 1976, the Commissioner computed the incomes which Mr. and Mrs. Westcott each earned during the year, and he determined deficiencies in income taxes based on such incomes. He also determined that the petitioners were liable for additions to tax under section 6651(a) for failing to file timely returns and under section 6653(a) for negligence or intentional disregard of rules and regulations.
At the trial, the petitioners filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction, and as the basis for their motion, they contended that under the Constitution, the Congress was not permitted to vest in this Court the jurisdiction to resolve disputes between the United States and its citizens over Federal taxes. They offered no evidence to refute the deficiencies determined by the Commissioner.
The petitioners' contention is frivolous. On the one hand, it is well settled that "a taxpayer may not unilaterally oust the Tax Court from jurisdiction which, once invoked, remains unimpaired until it decides the controversy."
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
1980 T.C. Memo. 144, 40 T.C.M. 265, 1980 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 439, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/westcott-v-commissioner-tax-1980.