26 U.S.C. § 7459

Reports and decisions

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 26 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Requirement

A report upon any proceeding instituted before the Tax Court and a decision thereon shall be made as quickly as practicable. The decision shall be made by a judge in accordance with the report of the Tax Court, and such decision so made shall, when entered, be the decision of the Tax Court.

(b) Inclusion of findings of fact or opinions in report

It shall be the duty of the Tax Court and of each division to include in its report upon any proceeding its findings of fact or opinion or memorandum opinion. The Tax Court shall report in writing all its findings of fact, opinions, and memorandum opinions. Subject to such conditions as the Tax Court may by rule provide, the requirements of this subsection and of section 7460 are met if findings of fact or opinion are stated orally and recorded in the transcript of the proceedings.

A decision of the Tax Court (except a decision dismissing a proceeding for lack of jurisdiction) shall be held to be rendered upon the date that an order specifying the amount of the deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court or, in the case of a declaratory judgment proceeding under part IV of this subchapter or under section 7428 or in the case of an action brought under section 6234, the date of the court’s order entering the decision. If the Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for reasons other than lack of jurisdiction and is unable from the record to determine the amount of the deficiency determined by the Secretary, or if the Tax Court dismisses a proceeding for lack of jurisdiction, an order to that effect shall be entered in the records of the Tax Court, and the decision of the Tax Court shall be held to be rendered upon the date of such entry.

(d) Effect of decision dismissing petition

If a petition for a redetermination of a deficiency has been filed by the taxpayer, a decision of the Tax Court dismissing the proceeding shall be considered as its decision that the deficiency is the amount determined by the Secretary. An order specifying such amount shall be entered in the records of the Tax Court unless the Tax Court cannot determine such amount from the record in the proceeding, or unless the dismissal is for lack of jurisdiction.

(e) Effect of decision that tax is barred by limitation

If the assessment or collection of any tax is barred by any statute of limitations, the decision of the Tax Court to that effect shall be considered as its decision that there is no deficiency in respect of such tax.

(f) Findings of fact as evidence

The findings of the Board of Tax Appeals made in connection with any decision prior to February 26, 1926, shall, notwithstanding the enactment of the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat. 9), continue to be prima facie evidence of the facts therein stated.

(g) Penalty

For penalty for taxpayer instituting proceedings before Tax Court merely for delay, see section 6673.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 886; Pub. L. 93–406, title II, § 1041(b)(2), Sept. 2, 1974, 88 Stat. 950; Pub. L. 94–455, title XIII, § 1306(b)(2), title XIX, § 1906(b)(13)(A), Oct. 4, 1976, 90 Stat. 1719, 1834; Pub. L. 97–248, title IV, § 402(c)(14), Sept. 3, 1982, 96 Stat. 668; Pub. L. 97–362, title I, § 106(b), Oct. 25, 1982, 96 Stat. 1730; Pub. L. 105–34, title XII, §§ 1222(b)(2), 1239(e)(1), Aug. 5, 1997, 111 Stat. 1019, 1028; Pub. L. 114–74, title XI, § 1101(f)(12), Nov. 2, 2015, 129 Stat. 638.)Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Revenue Act of 1926, referred to in subsec. (f), is act Feb. 26, 1926, ch. 27, 44 Stat. 9. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Tables.

Amendments

2015—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 114–74 substituted “section 6234” for “section 6226, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252”.

1997—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–34, § 1239(e)(1), which directed the amendment of subsec. (c) by substituting “, 6228(a), or 6234(c)” for “or section 6228(a)” could not be executed because the words “or section 6228(a)” did not appear in text subsequent to amendment by Pub. L. 105–34, § 1222(b)(2). See below.

Pub. L. 105–34, § 1222(b)(2), substituted “, 6228(a), 6247, or 6252” for “or section 6228(a)”.

1982—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 97–362 inserted provision that subject to such conditions as the Tax Court may by rule provide, the requirements of subsec. (b) and of section 7460 of this title are met if findings of fact or opinion are stated orally and recorded in the transcript of the proceedings.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 97–248 inserted “or in the case of an action brought under section 6226 or section 6228(a)” after “or under section 7428”.

1976—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 94–455 inserted “or under section 7428” after “under part IV of this subchapter” and struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 94–455, § 1906(b)(13)(A), struck out “or his delegate” after “Secretary”.

1974—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 93–406 inserted “or, in the case of a declaratory judgment proceeding under part IV of this subchapter, the date of the court’s order entering the decision” after “deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2015 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 114–74 applicable to returns filed for partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 2017, with certain exceptions, see section 1101(g) of Pub. L. 114–74, set out as an Effective Date note under section 6221 of this title.

Effective Date of 1997 Amendment

Amendment by section 1222(b)(2) of Pub. L. 105–34 applicable to partnership taxable years beginning after Dec. 31, 1997, see section 1226 of Pub. L. 105–34, as amended, set out as a note under section 6011 of this title.

Amendment by section 1239(e)(1) of Pub. L. 105–34 applicable to partnership taxable years ending after Aug. 5, 1997, see section 1239(f) of Pub. L. 105–34, set out as a note under section 6501 of this title.

Effective Date of 1982 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 97–248 applicable to partnership taxable years beginning after Sept. 3, 1982, with provision for the applicability of the amendment to any partnership taxable year ending after Sept. 3, 1982, if the partnership, each partner, and each indirect partner requests such application and the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate consents to such application, see section 407(a)(1), (3) of Pub. L. 97–248, set out as a note under section 702 of this title.

Effective Date of 1976 Amendment

Amendment by section 1306(b)(2) of Pub. L. 94–455 applicable with respect to pleadings filed with the United States Tax Court, the district court of the United States for the District of Columbia, or the United States Court of Claims more than 6 months after Oct. 4, 1976 but only with respect to determinations (or requests for determinations) made after Jan. 1, 1976, see section 1306(c) of Pub. L. 94–455, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7428 of this title.

Effective Date of 1974 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 93–406 applicable to pleadings filed more than one year after Sept. 2, 1974, see section 1041(d) of Pub. L. 93–406, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7476 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 39 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1955–2023 · leading case: Ballard v. Comm'r, 544 U.S. 40 (2005).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Ballard v. Comm'r, 544 U.S. 40 (2005). · cites it 6× “In addition, they maintain that 26 U. S. C. §§ 7459 (b) and 7461(a) require disclosure of all reports *65 generated in Tax Court proceedings, absent specific exemption.”

James E. Sochin v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Dennis S. Brown v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 843 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “On appeal, Taxpayers allege that the tax court: 1) failed to apply the proper legal standard for determining what a sham is; 2) failed to make adequate factual findings as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (b); 3) improperly considered evidence of other investors involved in the same…”

Est. of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, & Naomi Kanter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 337 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “See 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (a) (“A report upon any proceeding instituted before the Tax Court and a decision thereon shall be made as quickly as practicable.”

Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2009). · cites it 2× “Further, Congress has mandated in 26 U.S.C. § 7459 that the Tax Court make findings of fact in each report upon "any proceeding instituted before the Tax Court.”

Wilfred Aka v. United States Tax Court, 854 F.3d 30 (D.C. Cir. 2017). · cites it 2× “26 U.S.C. § 7459 (c). That disbarment orders are neither might further suggest that they are not “decisions of the Tax Court” subject to our review.”

United States v. Josephberg, 562 F.3d 478 (2d Cir. 2009). “” 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (d) (emphasis added). Thus, the tax court decision in Joseph-berg’s action challenging the 1985 calculations was likewise a ruling on the merits.”

Organic Cannabis Found. v. Cir, 962 F.3d 1082 (9th Cir. 2020). “” 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (d) (emphasis added). Under Appellants’ non-jurisdictional reading of § 6213(a), the Tax Court’s dismissal of a petition as untimely could potentially have the perverse effect of barring the taxpayer from later challenging the amount in a refund…”

Daniel L. Carroll & Ingrid N. Carroll, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants v. United States of Am., Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee, 339 F.3d 61 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 2× “— A decision of the Tax Court ... shall be held to be rendered upon the date that an order specifying the amount of the deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court or, in the case of a declaratory judgment proceeding .”

Robert P. Noli & Delora J. Noli v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 860 F.2d 1521 (9th Cir. 1988). “26 U.S.C. § 7459 (b). The bankruptcy court’s intent not to inhibit that function becomes even more apparent from a review of the transcript of the ex parte motion for relief.”

Ironbridge Corp. v. Comm'r, 528 F. App'x 43 (2d Cir. 2013). · cites it 3× “The Commissioner does not dispute this court’s jurisdiction to review the Tax Court’s deficiency decisions, which were the necessary consequence of Ironbridge’s election to dismiss its petition.”

W. W. Windle Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 550 F.2d 43 (1st Cir. 1977). “A decision is rendered “upon the date that an order specifying the amount of the deficiency is entered in the records of the Tax Court”, 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (c), and is reviewable only if there is a controversy between the taxpayer and the Government about the amount of taxes due.”

Norman B. Tapper & Eileen Tapper v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 766 F.2d 401 (9th Cir. 1985). “Appellants rely on section 7459(e) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 7459 (e), which provides: If the assessment or collection of any tax is barred by any statute of limitations, the decision of the Tax Court to that effect shall be considered as its decision that there…”

Show all 39 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.