- 12 -
2. Abatement of Interest
At trial, petitioner contested the interest that had accrued
on the 1993 deficiency. This issue arguably goes beyond the
scope of the issues defined in the petition. See Rule 331(b)(4).
However, respondent did not object. Accordingly, the Court
regards this issue as having been tried by consent, and it shall
be treated as if it had been raised in the petition. See Rule
41(b).
If, as part of a CDP Hearing, a taxpayer makes a request for
abatement of interest, the Court has jurisdiction over the
request for abatement of interest that is the subject of the
Commissioner's collection activities. Katz v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000). Generally, the Court considers only
arguments, issues, and other matters that were raised by the
taxpayer at the CDP Hearing or otherwise brought to the attention
of the Appeals Office. Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493
(2002); Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000),
affd. per curiam 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir. 2001); Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 612.
The record does not demonstrate that petitioner raised at
the CDP Hearing any issue concerning the accrued interest on the
1993 deficiency. While Mrs. Nicol inquired about the interest on
the 1997 deficiency, she never inquired about interest on the
1993 deficiency, nor did she ask for an abatement of either.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011