- 12 -
interest under section 6404, and (3) that we concluded that we
have jurisdiction under section 6404(i) to consider that request,
see Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. , (2000) (slip op. at
20), on the record before us, we find that petitioner has not
established, or even alleged, a ministerial error within the
meaning of section 6404(e) requiring an abatement of such inter-
est. See Katz v. Commissioner, supra at __ (slip op. at 20-21).
With respect to petitioner’s alternative request that the
Court waive any penalties assessed against him for 1990, respon-
dent claims, and petitioner does not dispute, that no penalties
were assessed against petitioner for 1990. Consequently, that
request is moot.2
We hold that there is no basis in the record to conclude
that respondent abused respondent’s discretion with respect to
any of the determinations set forth in the notice of determina-
tion.
To reflect the foregoing,
2Assuming arguendo that the record before us had established
that respondent assessed penalties against petitioner for 1990,
we would not consider petitioner’s alternative request that the
Court waive those penalties. That is because the record does not
establish that he raised that issue at his Appeals Office
hearing. See secs. 6320(c), 6330(d)(1); sec. 301.6320-1T(f)(2),
Q&A-F5, Temporary Proced. & Admin Regs., 64 Fed. Reg. 3398, 3404
(Jan. 22, 1999); sec. 301.6330-1T(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., 64 Fed. Reg. 3405, 3412 (Jan. 22, 1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011