Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
Hinck v. United States
The May 21, 2007 Supreme Court decision in Hinck v. United States helped clarify the issue of jurisdiction in the case of federal tax disputes. The case began with a claim by John and Pamela Hinck that the Internal Revenue Service caused them financial hardship. The Hincks received a notice from the IRS that they owed over $20,000 in unpaid interest due to outstanding taxes in the 1990s.
The Hincks requested abatement through Section 6404 of the IRS code due to bureaucratic delays. This claim was made in the U.S. Federal Claims Court and was rebuked by the court. The claims judge cited the specificity of Section 6404's provisions for federal tax claims. The Federal Claims Court published an opinion stating that the U.S. Tax Court is the sole arbiter of these cases.
The Hinck case advanced to the U.S. Court of Appeals based on an appeal for federal judicial intervention under the Tucker Act. This court supported the previous IRS and federal claims court decision of ultimate arbitration by the U.S. Tax Court. The Supreme Court heard the final appeal by the Hincks in May 2007.
In a unanimous decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court offered a straightforward interpretation of the IRS Code. This opinion reflected the Court's interest in maintaining the original intent of the law as well as the benefits of using the U.S. Tax Court. Litigants who use the U.S. Tax Court get the benefit of temporary relief from financial burden while federal courts require debt repayment before a case can be heard.
Click here to learn more about Debra L. Wabnik of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg
