- 12 -
Rept. 105-599, at 266 (1998), 1998-3 C.B. 770, 1020; see Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 609-610 (2000). Because they gave up
their right to come to Tax Court to redetermine their deficiency
before collection, they can’t successfully complain when the
Commissioner tries to collect.
B. Abatement of Interest
The Nicholses also ask us to review their request for
interest abatement, either as a direct appeal of the
Commissioner’s denial of their request under section 6404 or as
part of their CDP hearing under section 6320. Under either
theory, we must decide whether the Commissioner abused his
discretion. Sec. 6404(h)(1); Sego, 114 T.C. at 609-610.
Direct review under section 6404(h)(1) requires a taxpayer
to petition this Court within 180 days of the Secretary’s final
determination not to abate interest. The problem for the
Nicholses is that the Secretary has not yet issued a final
determination. The first request for interest abatement, which
the Nicholses included in a letter dated October 31, 2003, was
denied on November 20, 2003. The Nicholses then filed an appeal
with the IRS in December 2003, but that appeal has not yet run
its course. Even if we treat the initial rejection as a final
determination, they did not meet the Code’s 180-day deadline. We
thus have no independent jurisdiction under section 6404.
We may, however, have jurisdiction under section 6320. In
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011