- 9 -
purposes, especially given respondent's subsequent written
demands for payment of the interest. That argument, however, has
been considered and rejected by this Court. See Cho v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998-363. In Cho we held that the Court
lacks authority to graft a time limit within which the
Commissioner is obliged to respond to a request for interest
abatement. Id. Thus, a failure to act on a request within a
reasonable time does not constitute a final determination for
section 6404(h) purposes. Id. Whether a remedy should be
provided in the case of the Commissioner's failure to act on an
interest abatement request is a decision for Congress rather than
this Court, we reasoned. Id.
Petitioners alternatively argue that we should consider
respondent's Letter 853C refusing to abate the 1995 late filing
penalty as a notice of final determination for section 6404(h)
purposes. However, a letter must be intended as a notice of
final determination not to abate interest under section 6404 to
be treated as such for jurisdictional purposes. See Bourekis v.
Commissioner, supra at 26. As in Bourekis, the letter upon which
petitioners rely contains no indication that respondent intended
it as a notice of final determination or that respondent "[had]
given any consideration to whether it would be appropriate to
abate an assessment of interest" in petitioners' case. Id.
Consistent with Bourekis, respondent's Letter 853C may not be
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008