Talk:United States Tax Court

"Deficiency" versus "assessment"
In the first line of the article, I changed "assessments" to "deficiencies." Technically, when the matter arrives at the Tax Court, it's a "deficiency" as "determined" by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. There is no "assessment" until after the Tax Court decides the case -- and the "assessment" is made by the Commissioner, not by the Tax Court itself. Also, the meanings of both terms are now discussed in the article. Famspear 23:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Tax Court judges
I've coppied stubby bio info from the Tax Court website to make individual pages for the 32 judges - some have yet to be touched by the miracle of wikification, so any help with that would be appreciated. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:26, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of December 10, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Yes, but please move the list of judges to a separate article.
 * 2. Factually accurate?: No, please add citations where I put 'fact' tags.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Yes
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: No problem
 * 5. Article stability? Stable
 * 6. Images?: Ok

Please address these matters soon and then leave a note here showing how they have been resolved. After 48 hours the article should be reviewed again. If these issues are not addressed within 7 days, the article may be failed without further notice. Thank you for your work so far.— Ruslik (talk) 09:04, 10 December 2007 (UTC) Hello to all; I will take a look at this, hopefully tonight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * List of judges moved out. How is it not NPOV? bd2412  T 18:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cheers! bd2412  T 13:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I won't get to this 'til later in the week. Stay tuned. Famspear (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you going to add citations? The article can be on hold for one week only. Ruslik (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will try to get to this later tonight. Yours, Famspear (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will wait only until Friday. On this day I will fail the article if citation issues are not resolved. Ruslik (talk) 08:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's not up to GA standards by Friday, we'll resolve whatever is wrong when we can and try again another time. I'm going to take pictures of the Tax Court in a week or so (now that I'm situated in the area). Plenty of good articles have not made it on their first go. Cheers! bd2412  T 00:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I really am going to head out there and take pictures this week - maybe Thursday or Friday, this weekend at the latest. I have the metro stop mapped out and everything. bd2412  T 01:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ruslik0: I have a feeling I am not going to be able to find sourcing for the remaining items that are tagged. What should be done in a situation like this? Should the material simply be deleted? Famspear (talk) 16:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I will fail the article. However after you find necessary sources (I think it will take some time) you can renominate the article. Please, contact me and I will promote it if there is no other issues. Ruslik (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

As I promised I am going to fail the article today, but when you are ready to renominate it, please, feel free to contact me. Ruslik (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of reference to Dobson case
An anonymous editor has removed the reference to the case of Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U.S. 489 (1943). The reference to Dobson had been inserted way back on 13 May 2007 by another anonymous user, at IP70.18.254.44. I guess I had missed it.

Based on a preliminary analysis of Dobson, I agree with the removal of that reference. It appears that the Court in Dobson merely made passing reference to the method for appealing a Tax Court decision, but did not actually "rule" on that point in the way that was described in the removed material. The parties were not actually litigating that precise point. See Obiter dicta. Famspear (talk) 22:27, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lead Sentence
The lead sentence implies that the Tax Court was established directly by the Constitution, which is not the case. Is there a way to reword it to assert the importance of the establishment under IRC 7441? XF Lawtalk at me 04:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That language is precise verbiage from the Tax Court's official web site. See . I would respectfully disagree with the idea that the statement "implies that the Tax Court was established directly by the Constitution". The key word in the text is the word "under."

The fact this sentence was taken form the Tax Court's official website, does not make the statement true. I would recommend looking up Title 28 of the United States Code "Title 28 Judiciary and Judicial Procedure" section 3002 definition (2) ‘‘Court’’ means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court. This is in direct conflict with the leading sentence. I would tend to believe the actual United States Code in reference to the creation of a certain court, and the clearly the Tax Court was not created or established by Congress. Dbhoward2001 (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If the statement were worded as "the Tax Court was established BY the Constitution," I could see how that verbiage would be misleading. Just my personal opinion. I'll see if I can come up with some more clarifying language, though. Famspear (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, I've added some language that hopefully clarifies this. Yours, Famspear (talk) 15:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Your simple addition was great. It does help clarify. Thanks, Famspear. XF Lawtalk at me 16:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for catching this. Some times I can read something 20 times and still miss an ambiguity or unclear statement, etc., that someone else can see immediately. Famspear (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, for new readers: The quote from 28 USC section 3002 was a quote from a definition that applies for the specific purpose of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act of 1990, codified in part as Chapter 176 of Title 28 of the United States Code (sections 3001 through 3308 of title 28 of the U.S. Code). The United States Tax Court was created and established by Congress. This was done by the enactment of various statutes under the U.S. Constitution, as explained in the article. The current statute reads (in part) as follows: "There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court." Internal Revenue Code section 7441, separately codified as 26 U.S.C. section 7441. Famspear (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 09:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Under Genesis of tax...assess means to audit...examine the books...accounting means to record...bookkeeping
according to "The Dictionary of Cultural Literacy" by E.D. Hirsch, Jr, Joseph F Kett, James Trefil. Page 414...Assessment...the appraisal of property for the purpose of taxation. Accounting...the system of recording and auditing business transactions. The recording is not the actual assessment...its the additional amount after appraisal of the books. After all the amount of tax is recorded in several ways and more than once. The additional is assessed only once. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.216.72 (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Chief Judge is Kathleen Kerrigan as of June 1
Chief Judge is Kathleen Kerrigan as of June 1 2600:1700:6D94:430:2016:77EF:FB8C:197E (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Judge Gustafson
Judge Gustafson assumed senior status on 11/1/2022 69.153.4.10 (talk) 20:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)