- 5 - Meyer v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 555, 562 (1991); Hart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-78; Miner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-358; Harvey v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-229; Fujita v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-164, affd. without published opinion 225 F.3d 662 (9th Cir. 2000); Cherry v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-360; Reese v. Commissioner, supra. In other words, if a Federal income tax return is filed for the year before the Court, a proposed section 6654(a) addition to tax will not be subject to the deficiency procedures of section 6213(a), no notice of deficiency will be mailed to the taxpayer, and the Tax Court will not have jurisdiction to redetermine the addition to tax under section 6654(a) relating to the underpayment of estimated income tax. See sec. 6665(b)(2). As stated, petitioner timely filed his 1998 Federal income tax return. Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction under section 6665(b)(2) to redetermine the $594 addition to tax relating to petitioner's underpayment of estimated income tax for the last quarter of 1998. With regard to petitioner's claim that we abate the $5 of interest, the Tax Court under section 6404(i)(1) does not have jurisdiction to decide whether respondent's failure to abate interest under section 6404 constitutes an abuse of discretion unless or until respondent has made a “final determination” not to abate interest. See Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20, 25-26 (1998) (declining to treat a notice of deficiency as notice of final determination not to abate interest); Dai Ho Cho v.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011