Kenneth and Dorothy Hitchen - Page 30

                                       - 30 -                                         
          IV. Equitable Estoppel                                                      
               Petitioners argued at trial that they object to the                    
          imposition of additions to tax and interest on the deficiencies.            
          They argue that respondent knew that there were problems with the           
          Hoyt partnerships, but that respondent nevertheless allowed                 
          petitioners to continue in their investment and to keep receiving           
          refunds based on the returns they filed that were prepared by the           
          Hoyt organization.  To the same effect, petitioners stated in a             
          document filed with the Court prior to trial:                               
               We would like to add, the interest and penalties, we                   
               strongly object to.  The fault lies with the Internal                  
               Revenue Service.  They allowed us to join in a partnership,            
               that was illegal the year we joined.  The interest and                 
               penalties, have been accruing since 1984.                              
          We note that, while this Court has jurisdiction to review the               
          applicability of the section 6621(c) increased rate of interest,            
          discussed above, we generally lack jurisdiction to redetermine              
          the amount of interest due on a deficiency under section 6601               
          prior to entry of a decision redetermining the deficiency.  See             
          sec. 6621(c)(4); sec. 7481(c), as currently in effect; Rule 261;            
          Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249 (1996); see also               
          sec. 6404(h), as currently in effect (regarding judicial review             
          of a failure to abate interest).  Thus, petitioners’ arguments              
          concerning the amount of interest due on the deficiencies is not            
          properly before the Court at this time.  To the extent that                 
          petitioners’ arguments can be interpreted as a claim that                   

Page:  Previous  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011