- 2 -
section 6404(i)1 and Rule 281 with this Court, and respondent
timely filed an answer to the amended petition. Petitioner was a
resident of California at the times he filed his petition and
amended petition.
The case is before us on respondent’s motion for summary
judgment, as supplemented. We conclude, on the undisputed facts
before us, that petitioner is not entitled to abatement of
interest.2 We therefore grant respondent’s motion for summary
judgment.
Background
The following facts have been admitted or established by
uncontroverted documentary evidence.
In 1993, petitioner moved from California to Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, to attend the Carnegie-Mellon graduate school of
business. He used his Pittsburgh residence address on his 1993
Federal income tax return.
1 Unless otherwise indicated, section references are to the
Internal Revenue Code as in effect for the tax years for which
petitioner claims abatement of interest, and Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
2 Petitioner argues in his opposition to respondent’s motion
for summary judgment that he is also entitled to an abatement of
interest for tax year 1997. Petitioner did not request in his
petition or amended petition an abatement of interest with
respect to 1997. Moreover, respondent’s determination denying
abatement relates only to tax years 1992 and 1993. Therefore,
any issue relating to tax year 1997 is not properly before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011