- 4 -
under section 6682; and (2) whether respondent’s determination to
proceed with collection of petitioner’s assessed income tax
liability was an abuse of discretion.
I. Motion To Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction
During 1997, respondent assessed a $532.76 penalty under
section 6682 on the basis that petitioner provided false
information with respect to withholding for 1996. Respondent
moved to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction insofar as
it seeks review of this penalty. Respondent contends that this
Court does not have jurisdiction over a section 6682 penalty.
Section 6682(c) provides that deficiency procedures “shall
not apply in respect to the assessment or collection of any
penalty imposed by * * * [this section].” See Castillo v.
Commissioner, 84 T.C. 405, 411 (1985).2 Accordingly, we lack
jurisdiction over petitioner’s claim with respect to the section
6682 penalty.
II. Abuse of Discretion
The petition in this case was filed under section 6330.
Petitioner alleged numerous claims including, but not limited to,
claims of procedural and substantive defects in both the
assessment of his income tax deficiency for 1996 and the section
2 See also Van Es v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 324 (2000)
(holding, in a sec. 6330 case, that the Tax Court lacked
jurisdiction over a sec. 6702 penalty for the filing of a
frivolous return and granted the Commissioner’s motion to dismiss
for lack of jurisdiction).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011