Clifford W. Miller - Page 12

                                               - 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-                            
                  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