- 4 -
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at
issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where the underlying
tax liability is in issue, we review de novo. Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
Petitioners do not appear to argue that the failure of
respondent to accept the OIC was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we need not, and do not, consider whether the
Appeals officer’s refusal to accept the OIC submitted by
petitioners was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23
(1999). We do however consider the question of abatement of
interest and additions to tax.
A. Abatement of Interest
We have jurisdiction over petitioners’ request for abatement
of interest because the Court has jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner’s refusal to rebate interest under section 6404.
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000); Moore v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000). This Court may order an
abatement of interest if the Commissioner abuses his discretion
in failing to abate interest. Sec. 6404(h)(1). The taxpayer
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011