- 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