-2-
section 6404(g)1 and Rule 280. We decide whether respondent
abused his discretion in failing to abate accrued interest in
whole. We hold he did not. Section references are to the
applicable versions of the Internal Revenue Code. Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
The stipulated facts and the exhibits submitted therewith are
incorporated herein by this reference. Petitioner resided in
Sunnyside, Washington, when he petitioned the Court.2
On October 17, 1991, petitioner filed his 1990 Federal
income tax return. The tax return did not include in
petitioner’s gross income a brokerage fee and showed income tax
due of $10,325. Petitioner’s tax return was not accompanied by
any payment.
1 Sec. 6404(g) was redesignated sec. 6404(i) by the Internal
Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L.
105-206, secs. 3305(a), 3309(a), 112 Stat. 743. Sec. 6404(i) was
later redesignated sec. 6404(h) by the Victims of Terrorism
Relief Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-134, sec. 112(d)(1)(B), 115 Stat.
2435.
2 In his petition petitioner disputes $4,656.86. This
amount, however, consists of interest of $3,706.36 and of the
addition to tax of $950.50 under sec. 6651(a). On April 18,
2002, respondent moved the Court to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and to strike petitioner’s claim for abatement of
additions to tax. The Court granted respondent’s motion. See
Stewart v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-139. Accordingly, we
limit our discussion to the interest abatement claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011