- 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