Equitable Principles and Jurisdictional Time Periods, Part 2

dc.creatorCamp, Bryan
dc.description.abstractThis is the second of two articles looking at the relationship of equitable doctrines and time limits in the Tax Code. In the first article “Equitable Principles and Jurisdictional Time Periods” I showed how courts apply a mythical rule that equitable principles cannot apply to jurisdictional time limits. I showed why this rule is in fact a myth and argued that both normatively and empirically, the question of whether equitable principles can be applied to a given time period is a different question than whether the time period is “jurisdictional.” This article addresses a different aspect of how equitable doctrines affect a jurisdictional time period in tax law. When one studies the case law, one finds many instances where the Tax Court---often blessed by the Courts of Appeals---laments that it may not equitably “enlarge” or “extend” jurisdictional time periods, but then accomplishes the same result through its discretionary fact-finding power. In effect, it cheats. Less dramatically, it creates fictions to cover the gap between what is and what ought to be. While denying the power to use equitable principals to modify the legal bed, it instead uses equitable principles to stretch or lop off facts to fit a procrustean conception of the relevant limitation period. Part I of this article explains how the Tax Court has used equitable powers to create the facts necessary to obtain jurisdiction. Part II explores how the Tax Court has used equitable powers to ignore facts that would deny it jurisdiction. Part III shows how the Tax Court has used equity to alter how it counts the relevant time periods when doing do furthers the purpose of the statutes giving taxpayers access to judicial review. As I show below, the Tax Court is quite sympathetic to allowing parties to get to the merits of a case and so will bend and twist facts to give parties that chance where possible. Finally, Part IV takes a critical look at the common-sense reaction that the difference between facts and law justify this use of equity to indirectly alter applicable time periods when, at the same time, the Court refuses to use equity to directly toll a time period or estop the government from asserting a time period as a defense.en_US
dc.identifier.citation2018 TXN Magazine 24-7 (2018)en_US
dc.publisherTax Notesen_US
dc.subjectEquitable tollingen_US
dc.subjectEquitable estoppelen_US
dc.subjectJurisdictional time periodsen_US
dc.subjectJurisdictional statutesen_US
dc.subjectLimitation on assessmentsen_US
dc.subjectStatute of limitationsen_US
dc.subjectExceptions to limitation periodsen_US
dc.subjectLimitation periodsen_US
dc.titleEquitable Principles and Jurisdictional Time Periods, Part 2en_US


Original bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
page intentionally left blank.pdf
27.68 KB
Adobe Portable Document Format

License bundle

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
No Thumbnail Available
1.57 KB
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission