- 21 -
to encompass interest abatement, petitioner would be precluded
from raising this issue in the instant proceeding because he
failed to raise interest abatement with the Appeals officer.
Sec. 301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see Magana
v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. at 493; Miller v. Commissioner, 115
T.C. 582, 589 n.2 (2000), affd. 21 Fed. Appx. 160 (4th Cir.
2001). In any event, petitioner has not alleged a ministerial or
managerial error warranting an abatement of interest. See sec.
6404(e)(1).
Under the facts of this case, we conclude that granting the
motion for leave would be futile and contrary to the interests of
justice. Accordingly, we deny petitioner’s motion for leave to
file second amended petition.
C. Respondent’s Motion For Summary Judgment
We now turn to respondent’s motion for summary judgment, as
supplemented.
Summary judgment is intended to expedite litigation and
avoid unnecessary and expensive trials. Fla. Peach Corp. v.
Commissioner, 90 T.C. 678, 681 (1988). Summary judgment may be
granted with respect to all or any part of the legal issues in
controversy
if the pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions,
admissions, and any other acceptable materials, together
with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine
issue as to any material fact and that a decision may be
rendered as a matter of law.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011