- 6 -
Banat v. Commissioner, 109 T.C. 96 (1997); White v. Commissioner,
109 T.C. 92 (1997); Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-454.
Petitioner concedes that respondent did not mail a notice of
deficiency to him for the taxable year 1991. However, petitioner
contends that he was advised by a revenue agent to file a
petition with the Court within 70 days of the date appearing on
the letter that petitioner received from the Problem Resolution
Office. Assuming for the sake of argument that petitioner was
erroneously advised to file the petition herein, such fact does
not provide a basis for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over a
matter not authorized by statute. See, e.g., Schoenfeld v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-303 n.4. Respondent did not issue
a notice of deficiency to petitioner. His petition sought a
redetermination only of statutory interest, not of the underlying
increase in tax which had been assessed and paid pursuant to the
waiver on the Form 4549. It follows that we lack jurisdiction in
4(...continued)
(g) Review of Denial of Request for Abatement of
Interest.--
(1) In General.--The Tax Court shall
have jurisdiction over any action brought by
a taxpayer who meets the requirements
referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(iii) to
determine whether the Secretary's failure to
abate interest under this section was an
abuse of discretion, and may order an
abatement, if such action is brought within
180 days after the date of the mailing of the
Secretary's final determination not to abate
such interest.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011