- 20 -
interest, on the ground that respondent failed to make timely
notice and demand for payment of her 1992 deficiency. This Court
has held that in an appeal brought under section 6330(d), where
the existence and amount of the taxpayer’s underlying tax
liability is properly at issue, our jurisdiction allows us to
review the taxpayer’s claim for interest abatement pursuant to
section 6404, see Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341
(2000), as well as to redetermine the correct amount of the
taxpayer’s interest liability where the claim falls outside of
section 6404, see Urbano v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. 384, 389-393
(2004). In interest-abatement proceedings brought under section
6404(h), this Court has held that we have jurisdiction to
determine the amount of an overpayment pursuant to section
6404(h)(2)(B), which states: “Rules similar to the rules of
section 6512(b) shall apply for purposes of this subsection.”
See Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-43.
We do not believe that petitioner’s refund claim is properly
construed as being predicated on a claim for interest abatement
pursuant to section 6404.21 But even if petitioner’s claim were
21 Neither in the administrative hearing nor in this Court
proceeding has petitioner expressly asserted any claim for
interest abatement pursuant to sec. 6404. The gist of her claim
is that respondent has erroneously or illegally assessed
interest, by failing to make timely notice and demand for payment
of her 1992 deficiency. A claim for interest abatement
predicated on allegations of erroneous or illegal assessment is
prohibited in an income tax case (such as the instant case), by
(continued...)
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011