# Inverworld, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

> Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · November 24, 1992 · 979 F.2d 868

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483606

## Case

- **Full name:** INVERWORLD, LTD., Appellant, v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
- **Decided:** November 24, 1992
- **Citations:** 979 F.2d 868; 298 U.S. App. D.C. 319; 71 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 327; 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 30904
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Mikva
- **Judges:** Mikva, Wald, Edwards
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483606

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- applying "general principles familiar from appeals of district court decisions" to determine whether the Tax Court's decision was final
- holding that Tax Court order disposing of one or more but not all joined claims is appealable

## Opinion text

MIKVA, Chief Judge,
concurring in part and concurring in the judgment:
I concur in the judgment on the merits, but I do riot believe it was necessary for the court to take on the complex issue of jurisdiction in order to reach the- merits in this case. As we stated two terms ago in Cross-Sound Ferry Services, Inc. v. I.C.C., “ ‘when the merits of a case are clearly against the party seeking to invoke the court’s jurisdiction, the jurisdictional question is especially difficult and far-reaching, and the inadequacies in the record or briefing make the case a poor vehicle for deciding the jurisdictional question, we may rule on the merits without reaching’ the jurisdictional question.” 934 F.2d 327, 333 (D.C.Cir.1991), quoting Adams v. Vance, 570 F.2d 950 , 954 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1978).
This case has all the attributes that make pretermission of the jurisdictional issue appropriate. First of all, InverWorld’s claim that the Tax Court erred in holding that InverWorld’s petition did not contest the corporate tax deficiencies is so obviously groundless that our decision on the merits was virtually a foregone conclusion. Second, as the majority opinion demonstrates, the jurisdictional question is particularly intricate and unsettled. Our sibling circuits are split on whether they have jurisdiction to hear Tax Court orders which dispose of one or more, but not all, joined claims, and neither camp clearly has the better of the argument.
Finally, this case is an especially poor vehicle for deciding the jurisdictional issue. Because both parties want us to decide the appeal on the merits, we do not have the benefit of an adversarial presentation of the jurisdictional problem, and the supplemental briefs addressing the' issue are not illuminating. See Secretary of the Navy v. Avrech, 418 U.S. 676, 678 , 94 S.Ct. 3039, 3040 , 41 L.Ed.2d 1033 (1974) (per curiam) (skipping directly to the merits and “leavpng] to a future casé the resolution of the jurisdictional issue” because “even the most diligent and zealous advocate could find his ardor somewhat dampened in arguing a jurisdictional issue where the decision on the merits is ... foreordained.”)
Consequently, while I wholly concur with the majority’s analysis of the merits, I would bypass the jurisdictional question and “leave those issues for another day.” Id. at 678 , 94 S.Ct. at 3040 (Stewart, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9483606. Public record. Not legal advice.