Peter and Margaret Giragosian - Page 6

                                        - 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