McManus v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

5 Citing cases

  1. Halliburton Co. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    98 T.C. 88 (U.S.T.C. 1992)

    The exhaustion requirement is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction and failure to satisfy it results in dismissal of the action. McManus v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 84 (1989). The legislative history of section 7476 admonishes that a petitioner “must satisfy all procedural requirements within the Service” before it will be deemed to have cleared such hurdle.

  2. Halliburton Company v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

    98 T.C. 88 (U.S.T.C. 1992)   Cited 1 times

    The exhaustion requirement is a prerequisite to our jurisdiction and failure to satisfy it results in dismissal of the action. McManus v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 84 (1989). The legislative history of section 7476 admonishes that a petitioner "must satisfy all procedural requirements within the Service" before it will be deemed to have cleared such hurdle.

  3. Adminicor Servs. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    No. 10132-20R (U.S.T.C. Sep. 2, 2022)

    Section 7476 gives the Court jurisdiction to make a declaratory judgment with regards to the tax-qualified status of a retirement plan if it is determined that the taxpayer has "exhausted administrative remedies available to him within the Internal Revenue Service" (IRS). See McManus v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 83 (1989). Given that respondent has not made a final determination, we need not opine on whether petitioners have exhausted administrative remedies.

  4. Stepnowski v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    124 T.C. 12 (U.S.T.C. 2005)   Cited 5 times
    In Stepnowski, a corporation requested a determination letter after amending its plan to comply with a change in the law.

    80, 193; see also Wenzel v. Commissioner, 707 F.2d 694, 696 (2d Cir.1983), affg. T.C. Memo.1982–595; McManus v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 87, 1989 WL 80678 (1989). As a preliminary matter, we address petitioner's contention that the Court should reconsider its Order dated July 15, 2004, and grant petitioner's Motion for an Order to Calendar for Trial and petitioner's Motion for Permission for Discovery.

  5. Calvert Anesthesia Assocs.-Pricha Phattiyakul v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue

    110 T.C. 22 (U.S.T.C. 1998)   Cited 4 times

    Any of these limitations, if not met, will prevent us from making a declaratory judgment and will result in a dismissal of the underlying petition. Id.; McManus v. Commissioner, 93 T.C. 79, 84 (1989). We are concerned with the limitation in section 7476(b)(5), namely, the time for bringing an action for a declaratory judgment.