Ragnhild Anne Westby - Page 6
- 6 -
challenged those tax deficiencies in a prior Tax Court case,
petitioner cannot now do so in this proceeding. See Sego v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000).
Because petitioner did not file her request for an Appeals
Office hearing regarding respondent’s December 15, 2005, notice
of tax lien filing until March 8, 2006, and because respondent
properly conducted not a section 6330 collection hearing, but
rather an equivalent hearing and issued to petitioner an adverse
decision letter, no appeal to this Court lies with regard
thereto. Rule 330; Kennedy v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 255, 261-62
(2001); sec. 301.6320-1(i)(1), Q&A-I5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioner’s failure in her petition to raise specifically
interest abatement and her failure to claim a credit against her
Federal income taxes for payments made to respondent by
petitioner’s former husband constitute petitioner’s abandonment
or concession thereof. Rule 331(b)(4); Lunsford v. Commissioner,
117 T.C. 183, 185-86 (2001).
Further, and alternatively, with regard to any claim for
interest abatement, petitioner is silent as to what action of
respondent would support interest abatement (i.e., petitioner has
failed to allege any error or delay that occurred in this case as
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: November 10, 2007