- 4 -
On March 31, 2005, approximately 33 months after
petitioners' letter was received by respondent,4 respondent sent
a Letter 853C to petitioners. The letter was issued with respect
to petitioners' section 6651(a)(1) addition for 1995 and stated
that respondent could not grant petitioners' request to remove
the penalty because the information they provided did not
establish reasonable cause. The letter made no reference to
petitioners' request for an abatement of either the section
6651(a)(1) addition for 1994 or interest for either year.
On July 31, 2006, the Court received and filed a petition
submitted by petitioners and their counsel which they designated
as a petition for redetermination of a deficiency. On the
petition, petitioners elected "small tax case" procedures. On
the basis of the foregoing, this case was docketed initially as a
small tax case and designated as a petition for redetermination
of a deficiency.5
4 Respondent stipulated that he received the June 14, 2002
letter.
5 Upon further review of the petition, which is described in
its body as a "petition to remove penalties and interest"
determined by respondent for 1994 and 1995, and petitioners'
arguments at the hearing, it is apparent that the relief sought
by petitioners is an abatement of interest (and penalties). As
actions for review of the Commissioner's failure to abate
interest may not be conducted under the Court's small tax case
procedures, see sec. 7463, the small tax case designation has
been stricken by order of the Court. As this case is being
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, the principal impact of this
change is to restore the parties’ right to appeal.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008