- 18 -
6404.14 Consequently, we shall not consider that matter.15 See
Magana v. Commissioner, supra; Miller v. Commissioner, supra; see
also sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Based upon our examination of the entire record before us,
we find that respondent may proceed with the collection action as
determined in the notice of determination with respect to each of
petitioners’ taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1998.
We have considered all of petitioners’ arguments and conten-
tions that are not discussed herein, and we find them to be
without merit and/or irrelevant.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered for
respondent.
Reviewed by the Court.
COHEN, SWIFT, COLVIN, BEGHE, FOLEY, THORNTON, and MARVEL,
JJ., agree with this majority opinion.
14In support of their contention that they raised at their
Appeals Office hearing respondent’s failure to abate penalties
under sec. 6404, petitioners rely on a document that they at-
tached to their answering brief and that is not part of the
instant record. The Court has disregarded that document. See
Rule 143(b).
15Assuming arguendo that the record before us had estab-
lished that petitioners raised at their Appeals Office hearing
respondent’s failure to abate any penalties under sec. 6404 with
respect to their taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1998, we hold that
the Court does not have jurisdiction to review petitioners’
request that we review any such failure. See sec. 6404(h); see
also Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 21 n.4 (1999).
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011