Donald B. Hawksley - Page 2




                                        - 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