Westcott v. Commissioner
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."
Moreover, there is no merit whatsoever in the petitioners' argument that this Court's jurisdiction is unconstitutional. In
Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters, *443 arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it. The mode of determining matters of this class is completely within congressional control. Congress may reserve to itself the power to decide, may delegate that power to executive officers, or may commit it to judicial tribunals.
Conspicuous among such matters are claims against the United States. These may arise in many ways and may be for money, lands or other things. They all admit of legislative or executive determination, and yet from their nature are susceptible of determination by courts; but no court can have cognizance of them except as Congress makes specific provision therefor. Nor do claimants have any right to sue on them unless Congress consents; and Congress may attach to its consent such conditions as it deems proper, even to requiring that the suits be brought in a legislative court specially created to consider them. [Footnotes omitted.]
In
The petitioners have the burden of proving the deficiencies determined by the Commissioner to be incorrect.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.