- 7 - petitioner the notice of deficiency within the applicable statute of limitations. See sec. 6501(a). Assuming arguendo that petitioner might have a claim for abatement of interest, such claim is not cognizable in an action for redetermination of deficiency. See sec. 6404(e), (h); Rule 280(b); see generally tit. XXVII, Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, regulating actions for review of failure to abate interest; see also Bax v. Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 56-57 (2d Cir. 1993) (Tax Court ordinarily lacks jurisdiction to consider interest on a deficiency in the context of an action for redetermination of deficiency); Pen Coal Corp. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 249, 255 (1996) (same). To reflect our disposition of the disputed issue, as well as the parties’ concessions, see supra note 2, Decision will be entered for respondent as to the deficiency in income tax and for petitioner as to the accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a). 8(...continued) arising out of mathematical or clerical errors.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Last modified: November 10, 2007