The Supreme Court ruled Monday that only the U.S. Tax Court may review refusals by the Internal Revenue Service to reduce interest payments on people who underpay their taxes. The unanimous decision came in the case of John and Pamela Hinck, who sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking an $18,000 refund of interest. Chief Justice John Roberts said federal law specifies that the tax court provides the exclusive jurisdiction for such cases.
May 22, 2007 at 12:00 AM
1 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.Com
The Supreme Court ruled Monday that only the U.S. Tax Court may review refusals by the Internal Revenue Service to reduce interest payments on people who underpay their taxes.
The unanimous decision came in the case of a couple who were assessed additional taxes. John and Pamela Hinck sued in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims seeking an $18,000 refund of interest. They alleged delays in processing their case.
Presented by BigVoodoo
Join the industry's top owners, investors, developers, brokers & financiers at THE MULTIFAMILY EVENT OF THE YEAR!
Law firms & in-house legal departments with a presence in the middle east celebrate outstanding achievement within the profession.
The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.
Atlanta s John Marshall Law School is seeking to hire one or more full-time, visiting Legal WritingInstructors to teach Legal Research, Anal...
Lower Manhattan firm seeks a premises liability litigator (i.e., depositions, SJ motions, and/or trials) with at least 3-6 years of experien...
Join the Mendocino County District Attorney s Office and work in Mendocino County home to redwoods, vineyards and picturesque coastline. ...
MELICK & PORTER, LLP PROMOTES CONNECTICUT PARTNERS HOLLY ROGERS, STEVEN BANKS, and ALEXANDER AHRENS
