- 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 8
Last modified: November 10, 2007