- 10 -
petitioners were not entitled to receive personal notification by
the IRS of the Redwood audit.
Instead, South Bay’s TMP was required to notify petitioners
of the partnership level proceedings. Sec. 6223(g) and (h)(2).
The Appeals officer concluded that because petitioners were
not entitled to personal notification until the notice of
adjustment was sent, they were not entitled to interest abatement
under section 6404(e) before that date. However, the date the
NBAP was sent to South Bay should be considered the date of
respondent’s first written contact with petitioners for purposes
of section 6404(e). See Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2003-138. In this case, the Appeals officer did not apply this
requirement correctly. Consequently, we will look to the
specifics of petitioners’ case in order to decide whether they
are entitled to abatement of interest.
Petitioners argue that respondent abused his discretion in
denying their request for interest abatement for the period July
14, 1986, through February 9, 2000. The table below describes
the time line in which the relevant events occurred.
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