- 5 -
abuse of discretion. With respect to petitioners’ position
regarding respondent’s failure to abate interest under section
6404, Mr. Giragosian testified that, although he stated his
reluctance to pay interest and penalties to one IRS agent, he
neglected to address and request an abatement of interest during
the Appeals conference. Petitioners formally raised the
abatement of interest issue for the first time at trial.5
As previously stated, respondent’s notice of determination
is generally reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard.
Lunsford v. Commissioner, 117 T.C. 183, 185 (2001). Under that
standard of review, it would be anomalous and improper for this
Court to conclude that respondent’s Appeals Office abused its
discretion under section 6330(c)(3) in failing to grant relief on
a claim that was not raised by petitioners in the Appeals
process. Estate of Chimblo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-535,
affd. 166 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 1999); see also secs. 301.6320-
1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Accordingly, in this Court’s review for an abuse of discretion
under section 6330(d)(1) of respondent’s determination, generally
the Court considers only arguments, issues, and other matters
5The petition does not specifically address abatement of
interest and penalties. As previously noted, petitioners’
original petition challenged the underlying deficiencies and
asked for a clear explanation of the assessment; however, as
noted above, petitioners later stipulated the correctness of the
deficiencies.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011