26 U.S.C. § 7460

Provisions of special application to divisions

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

(a) Hearings, determinations, and reports

A division shall hear, and make a determination upon, any proceeding instituted before the Tax Court and any motion in connection therewith, assigned to such division by the chief judge, and shall make a report of any such determination which constitutes its final disposition of the proceeding.

(b) Effect of action by a division

The report of the division shall become the report of the Tax Court within 30 days after such report by the division, unless within such period the chief judge has directed that such report shall be reviewed by the Tax Court. Any preliminary action by a division which does not form the basis for the entry of the final decision shall not be subject to review by the Tax Court except in accordance with such rules as the Tax Court may prescribe. The report of a division shall not be a part of the record in any case in which the chief judge directs that such report shall be reviewed by the Tax Court.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 887.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 9 cases, 1958–2020 · 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 4× “, the Commissioner points to 26 U. S. C. § 7460 (b), the provision *63 governing cases reviewed by the full Tax Court.”

Donald G. Smith v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 926 F.2d 1470 (6th Cir. 1991). · cites it 2× “" 26 U.S.C. § 7460 (a). The chief judge, within 30 days of the filing of the report, may determine that the report shall be reviewed by the whole court with or without a hearing.”

Principal Life Ins. Co. & Subsidiaries v. United States, 116 Fed. Cl. 82 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “See 26 U.S.C. § 7460 (b); see also Arbitrage Trading, LLC v.”

Est. of Burton W. Kanter, Deceased, Joshua S. Kanter, & Naomi Kanter v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 337 F.3d 833 (7th Cir. 2003). “In doing so, the majority places significant weight on the Commissioner’s argument analogizing the STJ-Tax Court judge relationship to the division-Tax Court relationship governed by 26 U.S.C. § 7460 , in which a division’s preliminary report is never made public if the Tax…”

Samuels, Kramer & Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 930 F.2d 975 (2d Cir. 1991). “On April 9, 1990, in an opinion reviewed by the full Tax Court pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7460 (b), the Tax Court denied the motions to vacate the assignments (two judges did not participate).”

Wisconsin Mem'l Park Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 255 F.2d 751 (7th Cir. 1958). “887, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7460 . . I.R.C.3954, § 7460(h), 68A Stat.”

David H. Schultz & Bessie Schultz v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 278 F.2d 927 (5th Cir. 1960). “§ 1111 ); § 7460, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7460 (§ 1118 of the 1939 Code, 26 U.”

David Melasky v. CIR (5th Cir. 2020). “After each party moved for summary judgment, the court granted the Commissioner’s motion in an extremely detailed and comprehensive, reviewed opinion (after an opinion’s issuance by a division of the tax court, the tax court’s chief judge may designate it for review; otherwise,…”

Est. Burton Kanter v. CIR (7th Cir. 2003). “In doing so, the majority places significant weight on the Commissioner’s argument analogizing the STJ-Tax Court judge relation- ship to the division-Tax Court relationship governed by 26 U.S.C. § 7460 , in which a division’s preliminary report 86 Nos.”

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.