James G. & Katherine Bourekis - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         

          Commissioner erred in asserting that the Petitioners were liable            
          for any interest accruing since date of filing of return as the             
          interest abatement principles of 26 USC 6404(e) apply."  In                 
          connection with the foregoing, paragraph 5.6 of the petition                
          includes allegations that there was an unreasonable delay between           
          the filing of petitioners' 1981 tax return and the issuance of              
          the notice of deficiency.  The petition also includes an                    
          allegation that the notice of deficiency was issued beyond the              
          applicable period of limitations.                                           
               After filing an answer to the petition, respondent filed a             
          Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to Strike With               
          Respect to Penalties and Interest.  Respondent contends that the            
          Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioners' liability for             
          any additions to tax or penalties in this case because respondent           
          did not determine that petitioners are liable for any such items.           
          Respondent further contends that the Court lacks jurisdiction to            
          consider petitioners' liability for statutory interest because              
          respondent did not issue a final determination not to abate                 
          interest.                                                                   
               Petitioners filed an objection to respondent's motion to               
          dismiss.  Petitioners do not dispute respondent's assertion that            
          respondent did not determine additions to tax or penalties in               
          this case.  On the other hand, petitioners maintain that the                
          Court has jurisdiction to consider the question of whether                  





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011