- 14 -
There is no evidence in the record that petitioners
requested respondent to waive the section 6661 additions to tax
pursuant to section 6661(c). Petitioners first raised this issue
in their post-trial brief. It was not raised in their petition
or their pre-trial memorandum. Under such circumstances we
decline to find that respondent abused his discretion, since such
discretion was never requested to be exercised. McCoy
Enterprises, Inc. v. Commissioner, 58 F.3d 557, 563 (10th Cir.
1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1992-693; Reinke v. Commissioner, 46 F.3d
760, 765 (8th Cir. 1995), affg. T.C. Memo. 1993-197; The Escrow
Connection, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-17; Selig v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-519; Dugow v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-401, affd. without published opinion 64 F.3d 666 (9th
Cir. 1995); Magnus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-596.
Even if we were to assume that such a request was made and
that the evidence in this record was available to respondent, see
Reile v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1992-488; Rogers v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-619, we are not persuaded that
respondent's denial of a request for a waiver would constitute an
abuse of discretion under the facts. As discussed supra,
petitioners have not proved that their reliance on Mr. Santella
was reasonable.5
5 Although the stipulated decision in Anderson Equipment
Associates, et al, Barrister Associates, Tax Matters Partner v.
Commissioner, docket No. 27745-89, see supra note 3 and related
text, does not explain the basis of the decision, we have
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011