§7478 — Declaratory judgments relating to status of certain governmental obligations

14 cases·10 followed·4 cited71% support

(a)Creation of remedy

In a case of actual controversy involving—

(1)

a determination by the Secretary whether interest on prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a), or

(2)

a failure by the Secretary to make a determination with respect to any matter referred to in paragraph (1),

upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, the Tax Court may make a declaration whether interest on such prospective obligations will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a). Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a decision of the Tax Court and shall be reviewable as such.

(b)Limitations
(1)Petitioner

A pleading may be filed under this section only by the prospective issuer.

(2)Exhaustion of administrative remedies

The court shall not issue a declaratory judgment or decree under this section in any proceeding unless it determines that the petitioner has exhausted all available administrative remedies within the Internal Revenue Service. A petitioner shall be deemed to have exhausted its administrative remedies with respect to a failure of the Secretary to make a determination with respect to an issue of obligations at the expiration of 180 days after the date on which the request for such determination was made if the petitioner has taken, in a timely manner, all reasonable steps to secure such determination.

(3)Time for bringing action

If the Secretary sends by certified or registered mail notice of his determination as described in subsection (a)(1) to the petitioner, no proceeding may be initiated under this section unless the pleading is filed before the 91st day after the date of such mailing.

14 Citing Cases

FOLLOWED City of Santa Rosa, California, Petitioner 120 T.C. No. 12 · 2003

OPINION RUWE, Judge: This is an action for declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7478.1 Petitioner requested a ruling from respondent that interest on bonds it proposes to issue will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a), and that the proposed bonds will not be private activity bonds within the meaning of section 141(a).

FOLLOWED City of Columbus, Ohio, Petitioner 106 T.C. No. 17 · 1996

OPINION TANNENWALD, Judge: This is an action for a declaratory judgment pursuant to section 7478 and Rule 211.1 On June 3, 1994, petitioner submitted a ruling request to respondent seeking a determination that interest on certain proposed bonds will be excludable from gross income under section 103(a).

Abdel-Fattah v. Commissioner 134 T.C. 190 · 2010

)). See also, e.g., sec. 7428 (declaratory remedy by which an organization claiming tax-exempt status under sec. 501(c)(3) may challenge the IRS’s adverse ruling or failure to rule on the organization’s application for recognition of exempt status); sec. 7478 (declaratory remedy by which a State or city that claims that interest on its bonds qualifies for exclusion under sec. 103 may challenge the IRS’s adverse determination or failure to determine). However, certification, when present, will dr

Gwendolyn A. Ewing, Petitioner 122 T.C. No. 2 · 2004

rative record, unless, “with the permission of the Court, upon good cause shown,” the Court permits a party to introduce evidence that had not been presented to the Commissioner. Rule 217(a). Our disposition of a governmental obligation action under sec. 7478 is “made on the basis of the administrative record, augmented by additional evidence to the extent that the Court may direct.” Id. Our disposition of a declaratory judgment action involving a revocation, gift valuation, or the eligibility o

Ewing v. Commissioner 122 T.C. 32 · 2004

rative record, unless, “with the permission of the Court, upon good cause shown,” the Court permits a party to introduce evidence that had not been presented to the Commissioner. Rule 217(a). Our disposition of a governmental obligation action under sec. 7478 is “made on the basis of the administrative record, augmented by additional evidence to the extent that the Court may direct.” Id. Our disposition of a declaratory judgment action involving a revocation, gift valuation, or the eligibility o

City of Santa Rosa v. Commissioner 120 T.C. 339 · 2003
City of Columbus v. Commissioner 106 T.C. 325 · 1996
City of New York v. Commissioner 103 T.C. 481 · 1994
City of Tucson v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 767 · 1982
State v. Commissioner 77 T.C. 656 · 1981