- 4 -
Petitioner contends that the interest attributable to the
$2,404 tax he owes should be abated. Petitioner’s claim is broad
enough to be considered a request for interest abatement pursuant
to section 6404.
The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may
exercise jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by Congress.
Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529 (1985). The question of
the Court’s jurisdiction is fundamental and must be addressed
when raised by a party or on the Court’s own motion. Id. at 530.
Consistent with section 6404(h)(1), the Court’s jurisdiction
over interest abatement cases depends on a valid notice of final
determination and a timely filed petition for review. See Rule
280(b); Gati v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 132, 134 (1999). But cf.
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000). The Court
does not have jurisdiction to decide whether the Commissioner’s
failure to abate interest under section 6404 constitutes an abuse
of discretion unless or until the Commissioner has made a “final
determination” not to abate interest. Bourekis v. Commissioner,
110 T.C. 20, 25-26 (1998); Sigel v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2001-138. The Court does not have jurisdiction regardless of
whether the innocent spouse claim was raised in a “stand-alone”
case or in a deficiency proceeding.
Petitioner did not submit a request for interest abatement,
and respondent did not make a “determination” not to abate
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008