T.C. Memo. 2003-341

UNITED STATES TAX COURT

BHARAT S. PARIKH, Petitioner v.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent

Docket No. 14666-02L. Filed December 16, 2003.

Bharat S. Parikh, pro se.

William J. Gregg and Warren P. Simonsen, for respondent.

MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION

FOLEY, Judge: The issue for decision is whether respondent

may proceed with collection relating to petitioner’s 1988 and

1992 tax liabilities. 

FINDINGS OF FACT

Petitioner failed to file a 1988 Federal income tax return. 

Respondent filed a substitute return relating to that year and

sent petitioner a notice of deficiency. In response, petitioner
- 2 -

1 Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to

the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue.

initiated a proceeding, Parikh v. Commissioner, docket No. 13843-

91, which this Court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

On April 14, 1993, petitioner filed his 1992 return but did

not pay the self-assessed $1,429 tax due. On May 24, 1993,

respondent assessed this deficiency.

On November 30, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a Final

Notice – Notice of Intent to Levy and Notice of Your Right to a

Hearing, relating to 1988 and 1992. Petitioner, on December 27,

2001, sent respondent Form 12153, Request for a Collection Due

Process Hearing, relating to those years.

On May 15, 2002, the Appeals officer sent petitioner a

letter proposing a section 63301 hearing (hearing) on July 9,

2002. On May 29, 2002, the Appeals officer held a telephone

hearing with petitioner, but petitioner insisted on keeping the

July 9, 2002, scheduled hearing. During the May 29, 2002,

hearing, the Appeals officer discussed with petitioner the notice

relating to 1988 and petitioner’s self-assessed return relating

to 1992. 

On August 6, 2002, respondent sent petitioner a Notice of

Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) under Section 6320

and/or 6330 relating to 1988 and 1992. In response, on September
- 3 -

2 The record does not disclose the nature of the penalties

for which respondent contends petitioner is liable.

10, 2002, petitioner, while residing in Gaithersburg, Maryland,

filed his petition with this Court.

OPINION

Petitioner seeks a remand to the Appeals Office for further

proceedings because he contends that the Appeals officer failed

to complete the hearing process or take into consideration his

request for an abatement of interest and penalties.2 

We agree with petitioner that his hearing was not completed

and that respondent failed to consider his request for an

abatement of interest and penalties. We, however, consider

petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they lack merit and 

are legally insufficient to forestall collection. Petitioner did

not pay his 1988 and 1992 tax liabilities. As a result, section

6404(e) does not permit an abatement of the interest that accrued

on the unpaid tax before respondent contacted petitioner in

writing relating to petitioner’s 1988 and 1992 tax liabilities. 

Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 31 (2002). In addition,

interest accrued after respondent contacted petitioner may not be

abated because there is no evidence that the accrual of such

interest was attributable to respondent’s error or delay in

performing a ministerial act. Sec. 6404(e)(1); Katz v.

Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 341 (2000). Furthermore, petitioner
- 4 -

has not identified what, if any, penalties he wants us to

consider. Therefore, regardless of whether petitioner was

accorded his right to a hearing pursuant to section 6330(b), he

has not been prejudiced, and it is neither necessary nor

productive to remand this case to the Appeals Office to consider

petitioner’s contentions. See Nestor v. Commissioner, 118 T.C.

162, 167 (2002); Lunsford v. Commissioner 117 T.C. 183, 189

(2001). Respondent’s determinations are sustained.

Contentions we have not addressed are irrelevant, moot, or

meritless. 

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered

for respondent.