Edward H. Jones, III - Page 2




                                        - 2 -                                         
                                 MEMORANDUM OPINION                                   

               CHABOT, Judge:  This matter is before us on respondent’s               
          motion under Rule 1211 for summary judgment.  Respondent issued a           
          notice of determination disallowing petitioner’s claim for                  
          abatement of interest with respect to an underpayment of income             
          tax for 2000; petitioner timely petitioned this Court under                 
          section 64042 to review this disallowance.3                                 




               1 Unless indicated otherwise, all Rule references are to the           
          Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.                                  
               2 Unless indicated otherwise, all section references are to            
          sections of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 as in effect for              
          proceedings commenced at the time the petition in the instant               
          case was filed.                                                             
               3 In his petition, petitioner seeks abatement of interest.             
          In his response to respondent’s motion for summary judgment and             
          in his memorandum, petitioner seeks abatement of “interest and              
          penalties”.  We do not have jurisdiction to review failures to              
          abate penalties.  Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 21 n.4              
          (1999).  We also do not have jurisdiction to review failures to             
          abate additions to tax, such as the sec. 6651(a) amounts that               
          have been assessed in the instant case.  Krugman v. Commissioner,           
          112 T.C. 230, 237 (1999).                                                   
               Petitioner does not explicitly claim an overpayment in his             
          petition.  However, the parties agree that petitioner paid his              
          2000 tax obligation in full, including interest and penalties,              
          and we so find.  Also, petitioner submitted to respondent a claim           
          for refund.  Under sec. 6404(h)(2)(B), we have authority to                 
          determine that there is an overpayment if we order an abatement             
          of interest.  See Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-43;              
          124 T.C. 286, 288, 295 (2005), affd. 192 Fed. Appx. 212 (4th Cir.           
          2006); see also Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 10              
          n.18 (2006).  Under these circumstances, we treat the petition as           
          implicitly raising a claim for overpayment.                                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: March 27, 2008