§7482 — Courts of review
96 cases·19 followed·3 distinguished·3 questioned·1 criticized·6 overruled·64 cited—20% support
Statute Text — 26 U.S.C. §7482
The United States Courts of Appeals (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have exclusive jurisdiction to review the decisions of the Tax Court, except as provided in section 1254 of Title 28 of the United States Code, in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury; and the judgment of any such court shall be final, except that it shall be subject to review by the Supreme Court of the United States upon certiorari, in the manner provided in section 1254 of Title 28 of the United States Code.
When any judge of the Tax Court includes in an interlocutory order a statement that a controlling question of law is involved with respect to which there is a substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from that order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, the United States Court of Appeals may, in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made to it within 10 days after the entry of such order. Neither the application for nor the granting of an appeal under this paragraph shall stay proceedings in the Tax Court, unless a stay is ordered by a judge of the Tax Court or by the United States Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction of the appeal or a judge of that court.
For purposes of subsections (b) and (c), an order described in this paragraph shall be treated as a decision of the Tax Court.
If a United States Court of Appeals permits an appeal to be taken from an order described in subparagraph (A), except as provided in subsection (b)(2), any subsequent review of the decision of the Tax Court in the proceeding shall be made by such Court of Appeals.
An order of the Tax Court which is entered under authority of section 6213(a) and which resolves a proceeding to restrain assessment or collection shall be treated as a decision of the Tax Court for purposes of this section and shall be subject to the same review by the United States Court of Appeals as a similar order of a district court.
Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs (2) and (3), such decisions may be reviewed by the United States court of appeals for the circuit in which is located—
in the case of a petitioner seeking redetermination of tax liability other than a corporation, the legal residence of the petitioner,
in the case of a corporation seeking redetermination of tax liability, the principal place of business or principal office or agency of the corporation, or, if it has no principal place of business or principal office or agency in any judicial circuit, then the office to which was made the return of the tax in respect of which the liability arises,
in the case of a person seeking a declaratory decision under section 7476, the principal place of business, or principal office or agency of the employer,
in the case of an organization seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428, the principal office or agency of the organization,
in the case of a petition under section 6234, the principal place of business of the partnership,
in the case of a petition under section 6015(e), the legal residence of the petitioner, or
in the case of a petition under section 6320 or 6330—
the legal residence of the petitioner if the petitioner is an individual, and
the principal place of business or principal office or agency if the petitioner is an entity other than an individual.
If for any reason no subparagraph of the preceding sentence applies, then such decisions may be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. For purposes of this paragraph, the legal residence, principal place of business, or principal office or agency referred to herein shall be determined as of the time the petition seeking redetermination of tax liability was filed with the Tax Court or as of the time the petition seeking a declaratory decision under section 7428 or 7476, or the petition under section 6234, was filed with the Tax Court.
Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (1), such decisions may be reviewed by any United States Court of Appeals which may be designated by the Secretary and the taxpayer by stipulation in writing.
In the case of any decision of the Tax Court in a proceeding under section 7478, such decision may only be reviewed by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Upon such review, such courts shall have power to affirm or, if the decision of the Tax Court is not in accordance with law, to modify or to reverse the decision of the Tax Court, with or without remanding the case for a rehearing, as justice may require.
Rules for review of decisions of the Tax Court shall be those prescribed by the Supreme Court under section 2072 of title 28 of the United States Code.
Nothing in section 7483 shall be construed as relieving the petitioner from making or filing such undertakings as the court may require as a condition of or in connection with the review.
The United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court shall have the power to require the taxpayer to pay to the United States a penalty in any case where the decision of the Tax Court is affirmed and it appears that the appeal was instituted or maintained primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s position in the appeal is frivolous or groundless.
Treasury Regulations
- Treas. Reg. §Treas. Reg. §301.7482-1 Courts of review; venue
96 Citing Cases
I think that this 1988 provision "overrules" neither the cases on which I rely nor this Court's specific venue statute.
§ 7482. That test asks whether “(1) the party took an inconsistent position under oath in a separate proceeding, and (2) these inconsistent positions were ‘calculated to make a mockery of the judicial system.’” Slater v. U.S. Steel Corp., 871 F.3d 1174, 1181 (11th Cir. 2017) (quoting Burnes v. Pemco Aeroplex, Inc., 291 F.3d 1282, 1285 (11th Cir. 2002)). We find neither element of the Eleventh Circuit test has been met. Accordingly, judicial estoppel is inapplicable.
7482(b)(1)(G), providing proper venue for petitions under sec. 6320 or 6330 to the U.S. Court ofAppeals for the circuit in which is located the legal residence ofthe petitioner ifthe petitioner is an individual, is inapplicable in this case because it applies only for petitions filed after December 18, 2015.
In this Court, section 7482 provides that it is the petitioner’s residence which governs appellate venue.
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, it is section 7482, and not 28 U.S.C.
The Fourth Circuit also had jurisdiction under section 7482 to review the decision rendered by this Court.
In 1948 it amended section 7482 to state that “[t]he United States Courts of Appeals .
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal of this case would lie under section 7482, reviews the trial court’s exclusion of testimony under Fed.
ed mail, with return receipt requested--the IRS complies with the terms of the statute.12 And while some 12Both we and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would lie unless the parties agree otherwise, see sec. 7482, have reached similar conclusions in analyzing the validity of IRS notices under analogous Code provisions, see, e.g., Williams v. Commissioner, 935 F.2d 1066, (continued...) - 22 - courts have held that the IRS must do more in certain anal
The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which an appeal of this case would ordinarily lie under section 7482, found that Cabintaxi was engaged in the business of being a U.S.
framework for evaluating equal protection claims regarding statutes affecting economic rights, such as section 72(t). The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Seventh Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would lie unless the parties agree otherwise, see sec. 7482, has aptly summarized that framework in reviewing another decision ofthis Court: Statutes affecting economic rights which neither invade a substantive Constitutional right or freedom nor utilize a suspect classification such as race are sub
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. " Appellate venue ofa Tax Court decision is defined by section 7482. In the case ofa "redetermination oftax liability" for an individual, appeal lies to the circuit in which the taxpayerresided when he filed the petition. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(A). The Code doesn't address what happens when there are multiple t
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. " Appellate venue ofa Tax Court decision is defined by section 7482. In the case ofa "redetermination oftax liability" for an individual, appeal lies to the circuit in which the taxpayerresided when he filed the petition. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(A). The Code doesn't address what happens when there are multiple t
in subsection (h)(4)(B), "but only if * * * the treatment ofan item reflected on such return is directly related to the resolution ofan issue in the proceeding". (Emphasis added.) Is there a difference 5 Appellate venue ofour decisions is defined by section 7482. For an individual we ask where he resided when he filed his petition, sec. 7482(b)(1)(A); for a corporation we ask where its principal place ofbusiness was, sec. 7482(b)(1)(B). Indian tribes are neither individuals nor corporations--the
All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the year in issue, and all rule references are to the Tax Court Rules ofPractice and Procedure, unless otherwise indicated. " Appellate venue ofa Tax Court decision is defined by section 7482. In the case ofa "redetermination oftax liability" for an individual, appeal lies to the circuit in which the taxpayerresided when he filed the petition. Sec. 7482(b)(1)(A). The Code doesn't address what happens when there are multiple t
nventory for the next year. Those year-end inventories also serve as a "record ofconsumption" ofthe (continued...) -12- what caselaw there is on the subject. Nothing's directly on point, but the Ninth Circuit, to which this case is appealable, s_ee sec. 7482, has spoken a couple times about the timing offarmers' deductions. Both Zaninovich and Van Raden acknowledge that farmers can use cash-method accounting--butthat general proposition isn't disputed here. See sec. 1.471-6(a), Income Tax Regs.
facie evidence ofearnings or profits for income tax purposes. * * * Estate ofUris ý. Commissioner, 605 F.2d at 1265. The U.S. Court ofAppeals for the Ninth Circuit, to which an appeal in this case would lie absent a stipulation to the contrary, s e sec. 7482(lg)(1)(A), has held that in determining earnings and profits, a court eed not apply the same standard as applied in corporate accounting pra tice, Commissionerv. Goldwyn, 175 F.2d 641, 643-644 (9th Cir. 1949), aff'g 9 C. 510 (1947). Further
Necessarily, we have had to consider what we should do when an issue comes before us a second time, after a Court ofAppeals has reversed a prior Tax Court decision on the same point. In Lawrence v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. at 716-717, we determined that, while certainly we should seriously consider the reasoning ofthe reversing Court ofAppe
Necessarily, we have had to consider what we should do when an issue comes before us a second time, after a Court of Appeals has reversed a prior Tax Court decision on the same point. In Lawrence v. Commissioner, 27 T.C. at 716-717, we determined that, while certainly we should seriously consider the reasoning of the reversing Court of A
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that a court is to "analyze two aspects of a'transaction to determine if it has economic substance: its objective economic substance and the subjective business motivation behind it." IJUi v. CM Holdings, Inc., 301.F.3d 96, 102 (3d Cir. 2002). However, in CM Holdings, Inc. the court w
7482 (b) (1) (flush 3 language). That court, like the Supreme Court, has not expressly addressed the propriety of ps udonymous or anonymous litigãtion, (continüed2 . . ) - 17 - Relatively cecently, the ..Conrt of Appeals t for the Secbnd Circuit canvasse<i the caselaw to compile what that court described as a, "non-exhaustive" list of 1Ó fact
7482 (b) (l) (E), (2). Understandably, Judge Wherry may wish to be heard on that question. Unfortunately, his contribution--his conclusion that Chenery requires the Secretary to "unequivocally" repudiate Colony in his regulations, majority op. p. 41--will, if mistaken for the position of the Court, likely only cause us more trouble in our alre
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has stated that a court is to “analyze two aspects of a transaction to determine if it has economic substance: its objective economic substance and the subjective business motivation behind it.” IRS v. CM Holdings, Inc., 301 F.3d 96, 102 (3d Cir. 2002). However, in CM Holdings, Inc. the court we
7482 (b) (1) (B) . The Tax Court will "generally défer to the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals for the circuit t o which appeal would normally lie, if L that Court of Appeals has ruled with respect to the identical issue." Becker v. Commissióner, T.C. Memo. 2006-264; see also Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d
7482 (b) (1) (A). - 3 - By profession petitioner is, and has been for many years, a plumber/pipefitter. As such, petitioner is a member of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada,.(UA).3 Throughout his professional career, petitioner has been a member of UA
; see also Keller v.
See also- Lardas v .
Without deciding whether petitioner resided in the Eleventh Circuit, we focus on whether caselaw in the Eleventh Circuit would characterize petitioner's pledge of stock as an economic outlay that would increase his basis in the S corporation. ¹°A footnote states that a guarantor who has pledged stock to secure a loan "has experienced an
See id at 297 (citing section 7482 (b) (1) ) .