- 5 -
taxable years other than 1981, Appeals Officer Sivick stated:
“Your desire and belief are not the relevant factors considered
under the law in abatement of interest cases. Therefore, I would
not consider this argument to have any merit for purposes of a
request for abatement of interest.” Appeals Officer Sivick did
not address the content or effect of the settlement agreements.
In closing, Appeals Officer Sivick gave petitioner until October
17, 2001, to continue to present arguments.
In a notice of final determination dated July 26, 2002,
respondent denied petitioner’s request for an abatement of
interest. Respondent explained the denial of petitioner’s
request as follows: “We did not find any errors or delays on our
part that merit the abatement of interest in our review of
available records and other information for the period from April
15, 1984 to October 9, 1995.”
On January 21, 2003, petitioner filed a petition with this
Court pursuant to section 6404(h) and Rule 280 seeking review of
respondent’s refusal to abate interest under section 6404(e). In
his petition, petitioner primarily contended that, pursuant to
section 6231(b)(1)(C), when the parties executed the settlement
agreements, partnership items converted to nonpartnership items;
the conversion to nonpartnership items triggered the 1-year
statutory limitations period on assessment contained in section
6229(f) (section 6229(f) assessment period); respondent failed to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011