- 11 -
the Court’s jurisdiction is fundamental and must be addressed
when raised by a party or on the Court’s own motion. Id. at 530.
Consistent with section 6404(h)(1), the Court’s jurisdiction
over interest abatement cases depends on a valid notice of final
determination and a timely filed petition for review. See Rule
280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134 (1999). But cf.
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000). The Court
does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Commissioner’s
failure to abate interest under section 6404 constitutes an abuse
of discretion unless or until the Commissioner has made a “final
determination” not to abate interest. Bourekis v. Commissioner,
110 T.C. 20, 25-26 (1998); Sigel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-138.
The record does not indicate that Mr. Weiler submitted a
request for interest abatement or that respondent made a final
determination denying a request for interest abatement.
Accordingly, we conclude that the Court lacks jurisdiction under
section 6404(h) to decide this issue.8
8 This is so regardless of whether Mr. Weiler raised this
issue in a petition from the notice of deficiency or the notice
of determination. See Block v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 62, 68
(2003) (in a “stand alone” case brought pursuant to sec. 6015(e)
our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing the Commissioner’s
denial of relief from an existing joint and several tax liability
under subsecs. (b), (c), and (f) of sec. 6015); Muir v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-304 n.2 (in the deficiency context,
consideration of a taxpayer’s request for abatement of interest
is premature as there has been no assessment of interest), affd.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011