- 2 - 7443A(b)(5) and Rules 180, 181, and 183.1 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below. OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: On June 2, 1999, respondent issued a notice of final determination denying petitioner’s claim for abatement of interest on a deficiency in petitioner’s Federal income tax for the taxable year 1986. Petitioner timely filed a petition with this Court pursuant to section 6404(i) and Rules 280-284. The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his discretion by denying petitioner’s claim for abatement of interest.2 We hold that respondent did not.3 FINDINGS OF FACT Most of the facts have been stipulated, and are so found. The stipulation of facts and supplemental stipulation of facts, 1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. 2 To the extent that petitioner’s claim for abatement includes a claim for abatement of tax, penalties, or additions to tax, see infra Findings of Fact F, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider such claim. See sec. 6404(b), (e)(1); Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 237 (1999). 3 The Court directed respondent to file an opening brief within 60 days after the conclusion of the trial and afforded petitioner the opportunity of filing an answering brief within 30 days thereafter. Compare Rule 151(b)(2). Respondent timely filed an opening brief; however, petitioner chose not to file an answering brief.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