- 49 -
during the 90-day period in which he was allowed to petition the
imposition of the penalty to this Court. Petitioner further
contends, however, that his case was assigned to the IRS Office
of Appeals for several months before the trial and that during
that time “All present issues were discussed at length and
ultimately rejected by the Service”, so that “the failure of the
Commissioner to waive the overvaluation penalty while this case
was in Appeals, amounts to an abuse of discretion”.
Petitioner has failed to persuade us that he requested a
waiver before trial as he alleges. Petitioner did not request a
waiver in his petition, nor did he allege that he had requested
a waiver or that he had reasonable cause for the valuation of
the partnership’s assets claimed on his return. Petitioner did
not introduce any evidence at trial to prove that he had
requested a waiver or that he submitted any information to
respondent in support of a waiver. See, e.g., Mailman v.
Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1084 (1988); Haught v. Commissioner,
supra; Magnus v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1990-596. Because
petitioner has failed to establish that he made a timely request
for waiver, we cannot conclude that respondent abused his
discretion in failing to waive the section 6659 addition to tax.
Merino v. Commissioner, 196 F.3d at 159 (the Tax Court cannot
order the Commissioner to affirmatively do something that is
within the original discretion of the Commissioner where there
Page: Previous 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011