- 11 -
From the record before us, it appears that respondent’s
statement that “Agri-Venture Fund is in Appeals at the present
time” may have been incorrect. As respondent notes, although
respondent had previously issued an FPAA to the TMP of Agri-
Venture Fund for the year at issue, it is possible that a
settlement offer in the case was being considered at the Appeals
Office level. Nothing in the record indicates that this is not
so. In any event, we conclude that petitioner has not
demonstrated that the accrual of any interest is attributable to
the above statement in respondent’s letter of January 20, 1997,
even if we assume that respondent’s statement was in error.
In order to qualify for relief pursuant to section 6404(e),
a taxpayer must demonstrate a direct link between the error or
delay and a specific period during which interest accrued.
Guerrero v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2006-201; Braun v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-221. Respondent’s error has not
been shown to have caused the accrual of any interest. Although
the case of Agri-Venture Fund may not have been “in Appeals” when
8(...continued)
Commissioner, 29 F.2d 502 (7th Cir. 1928), affg. 8 B.T.A. 734
(1927); Pallottini v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-530.
Moreover, in a fully stipulated case such as the matter before
us, we consider those matters not contained in the stipulations
to be without support in the record. Miyamoto v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1986-313. We therefore do not consider the contents
of the letter attached to petitioner’s second amended petition.
We note, however, that consideration of the letter would not
alter our conclusions in the matter before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007