- 10 -
failure to pay estimated tax.4
The record does not demonstrate that petitioners raised at
the administrative hearing an issue concerning respondent’s
failure to abate additions to tax. We do not, therefore,
consider any such issue. See Washington v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. 114, 124 (2003). Assuming without prejudice that
petitioners did raise such an issue, this Court lacks
jurisdiction to review petitioners’ request that we review any
such failure. Id. at 124 n.15.
Insofar as interest is concerned, the record does not
demonstrate that petitioners raised at the administrative hearing
an issue concerning respondent’s failure to abate interest. We
do not, therefore, consider any such issue. Id. at 123-124.
Assuming without prejudice that (1) petitioners did raise such an
issue and that (2) we have jurisdiction to consider it, see id.
at 123 n.12, we conclude that petitioners have failed to prove
that respondent abused his discretion in failing to abate
interest. Indeed, petitioners failed to establish any error or
delay attributable to one of respondent’s officers’ or employees’
being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act
4 At trial, petitioners made no effort to show that their
failure to timely file or that their failure to timely pay was
attributable to reasonable cause and not willful neglect, nor did
petitioners make any effort to show that their failure to pay
estimated tax was statutorily excused. Similarly, petitioners
raised no issue regarding the computation of any of the additions
to tax.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011