## Facts

- John and Pamela Hinck were assessed additional federal income tax and substantial interest after the IRS disallowed partnership deductions.
- Under 26 U.S.C. § 6404(e)(1), the Secretary of the Treasury may abate interest on a deficiency attributable to IRS “error or delay” in performing a “ministerial act.”
- The Hincks requested abatement of interest assessed for March 21, 1989, to April 1, 1993, asserting IRS error or delay.
- The IRS denied the request in a final determination letter.
- In 1996, Congress enacted 26 U.S.C. § 6404(h), authorizing the Tax Court to review, for abuse of discretion, a failure to abate interest and to order abatement if a qualifying taxpayer files within 180 days of the final determination.
- Rather than suing in the Tax Court, the Hincks filed in the Court of Federal Claims, invoking general refund and Tucker Act jurisdiction.
- The Court of Federal Claims dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; the Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding § 6404(h) is exclusive.

## Issues

1. Whether 26 U.S.C. § 6404(h) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Tax Court to review IRS refusals to abate interest under § 6404(e)(1), thereby precluding suits in district courts or the Court of Federal Claims under more general jurisdictional statutes.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the Federal Circuit.
- The Court held that the Tax Court is the exclusive forum for judicial review of a failure to abate interest under § 6404(e)(1).
- Because § 6404(h) supplies the sole avenue for review, the Court of Federal Claims lacked jurisdiction over the Hincks’ suit.

## Legal Principles

- When Congress enacts a precisely drawn, detailed remedial scheme, it generally displaces more general remedies and jurisdictional grants.
- Section 6404(h) establishes a comprehensive framework for review of interest-abatement denials by specifying the forum (Tax Court), eligible plaintiffs (net-worth-limited taxpayers by cross-reference), a 180-day limitations period, an abuse-of-discretion standard, and authority to order abatement.
- A specific review provision enacted against a background of uniform nonreviewability is strongly read as the exclusive path for judicial review, even without express “exclusive” language.
- General jurisdictional statutes for monetary claims against the United States do not create concurrent jurisdiction where a later, specific statute assigns review to a particular court with defined limits.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Congress’s detailed review provision in § 6404(h) created the only judicial route to challenge IRS denials of interest abatement under § 6404(e)(1), requiring qualifying taxpayers to proceed in the Tax Court within the statute’s conditions and time limit.


Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501 (2007)