FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V E N T H C IR C U IT MAY 12, 2005 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1337 8

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ U . S. T A X Co urt N o. 113 82- 01L CHARLES R. GODW IN, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent -Appellee.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- -

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1338 2

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ U . S. T A X Co urt N o. 498 -0 2 CHARLES R. GODW IN, LINDA S. GODW IN, Pe tit ion er s- Appe llants , ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent -Appellee.2 --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ N o. 04- 1339 1

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ U . S. T A X Co urt N o. 148 17- 02L LINDA S. GODW IN, Pe tit ion er -Appe llant, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent -Appellee.

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ Appe al s f ro m aD ec isi on o f the United States T ax Court

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ( May 12, 200 5) Be fo re A N D E RS O N , H U L L and R O N E Y , Ci rc uit Jud ge s. PE R CU RIA M: T axpay er s a

ppe al f ro m a dve rs e de ci sio ns i n th e T ax Co urt i n th es e co nsol idate d c as es . A ft er or al arg um en t and c ar ef

ul r ev ie w , w e co nc lud e that theIn li g ht o f o ur dis po sit ion , w e e xpre ss n o o pin ion on the Tax Cour

t’ s c omm e nts 1 with respec t to its jurisdiction of the abatement issue. 3 j udgm en t of

the T ax Co urt i s du e to b e af fi rm ed . I t a

ppe ar s th at

ta xpay er s have not ch al le nge d th e pe na lty

a sse sse d f

or the ir f ai lur e to p ay

e sti m at ed

ta xe s, a nd i n any ev en t, any

suc h c ha lle nge w oul d c le ar ly be w ith out

m er it. W ithr es pe ct

to taxpay ers’ challenge to the penalty for f ailure to tim ely

pay taxes, the T ax Court fo und that the re w as not

r ea sona ble c au se . W e re ad ily

c onc lud e that tha t f

ind ing is not c le ar ly e rr one ous. S im ilarl y , the T ax Co urt f ound that the re w as not

r ea sona ble ca use f or ta xpay er s’ f

ai lur e to f ile in tim el y

f as hio n, a nd w e ag ai n c onc lud e that the T ax Co urt’ s f

ind ing is not

c le ar ly e rr one ous. T axpay er s are appare ntl y se ek ing to ch al le nge the T ax Co urt’ s r ef usa l t o ab at e the a cc ru al of

int er es t be ca

use of pr es ide nti al ly

de cl ar ed dis as te rs . W e not e that t axpay er s w er e al low ed aba te m en t of

int er es t duri ng the one m onth r ef er re d to in the I RS ne w sle tte r. H ow ev er , w e cannot dis ce rna ny

int el lig ibl e ar gum en t i n ta xp ay ers ’ in it ia l b rie f to supp or t an y ad di ti on al ab at em en t. Accor di ng ly, we 1 de cl ine to ad dr es s th e iss ue . Mo re ove r, a ny suc h a ba te m en t of

int er es t w oul d ap pare ntl y

appl y onl y in ci rc um stanc es w he re the I RS e xte nde d no t on ly the ti m e to fi le , but a lso the ti m e fo r paym en t, a nd i t do es not appe ar that the re ha s be enany ex te ns io n o f ti m e fo r pa ym en t i n t hi s ca se .4

W ith respect to taxpay ers’ challenge to the levy , the T ax Court held that ta xpay er ha d w ai ve d any

suc h c ha lle nge by

f ai lin g to r ai se sam e at

the appr opr ia te t i m e i n th e T ax Co u rt . We c o n cl u d e t h at i t i s ap p ro p ri at e t o h o n o r t h e T ax Co u rt ’s en fo rc em en t of

it s pr ude nti al r ule . T he T ax Co urt m ad e fi ndi ngs of f ac t de ny ing each of the c asualty

losses claim ed by

taxpay ers. W e cannot conclude that the Tax Co ur t’s fi nd in gs are cl earl y erro ne ou s. A ny oth er arg um en ts a sse rt ed

by ta xpay er s onappe al a re r ej ec te d w ith out ne ed f or f urthe r dis cu ssi on. A cc or din gly , the j udgm en t of the T ax Co urt i s AFFIRMED.