TAX COURT OPINION

Case: Dexter McAllister James
Docket Number: 11693-16S
Judge: Carluzzo
Opinion Type: bench
Filed: 03/07/2017
Pages: 5

UNITED STATES TAX COURT WASHINGTON, DC 20217 DEXTER MCALLISTER JAMES, Petitioner, v. ) ) SR ) Docket No. 11693-16S COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent. ) ) ) ORDER Pursuant to Rule 152(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall transmit herewith to petitioner and to respondent a copy of the pages of the transcript of the trial in the above case before Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo at New York, New York, containing his oral findings of fact and opinion rendered at the trial session at which the case was heard. In accordance with the oral findings of fact and opinion, decision will be entered for respondent. (Signed) Lewis R. Carluzzo Special Trial Judge Dated: Washington, D.C. March 7, 2017 SERVED Mar 08 2017 Capital Reporting Company 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Bench Opinion by Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo February 16, 20I7 Dexter McAllister James v. Commissioner Docket No. 11693-16S THE COURT: The Court has decided to render oral findings of fact and opinion in this case, and the following represents.the Court's oral findings of fact and opinion (bench opinion). Section·references in this bench opinion are to, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, in effect for the relevant periods, and Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. This bench opinion is made pursuant to the authority granted by 'section 7459(b) and Rule 152. This proceeding for the redetermination of a deficiency is a small tax case subject to the provisions of section 7463 and Rules 170 through 175. Pursuant to section 7463(b), the decision entered in this case shall not be treated as precedent for any other case. Dexter McAllister James appeared on his own behalf. Jerry M. Innocent appeared on behalf of Respondent. In a Notice of Deficiency dated March 28, 2016 (Notice), Respondent determined a $2,643 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 4 1 2 3 4 deficiency in Petitioner's 2013 Federal income tax. The deficiency is attributable to the following: (1) an adjustment increasing Petitioner's income by the amount of interest income not reported on 5 Petitioner's 2013 Federal income tax return (return); 6 7 (2) an adjustment increasing Petitioner's income by the amount of retirement income not reported on 8 Petitioner's return; (3) the disallowance of a 9 student loan interest deduction claimed on 10 Petitioner's return; and (4) the imposition of the 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 section 72(t) additional tax on the above-referenced retirement income. Petitioner now concedes all of the above-referenced adjustments, which, in effect, is a concession of the deficiency originally placed in dispute in this proceeding. He now challenges any interest or penalties that might result from his concessions. We begin by noting that no penalties are imposed in the Notice, so the assessment of the deficiency will not result in the imposition of any penalty or addition to tax subject to the deficiency procedures. It would appear that Petitioner's reference to "penalties" is a reference to interest, which by statute will accrue from the date the tax was due until the date it is paid. See sec. 6601(a). 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 According to Petitioner, upon first being notified about the errors he made on his return, he tried to contact Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employees for an explanation of the items giving rise to the deficiency but he did not receive a timely response. He even went as far as to submit a 2003 amended return consistent, with one exception, to the adjustments made in the Notice. The amended return was received by Respondent before the Notice was issued, but it was not processed. As Petitioner views the matter, he should not be charged interest for the delay in resolving this matter caused by the failure of the IRS to respond timely to his questions. In substance, Petitioner is requesting an abatement of interest yet to be assessed on a deficiency soon to be assessed. It is well settled, however, that in proceedings such as this one commenced pursuant to section 6213(a), the Court has no jurisdiction to consider a taxpayer's request for an abatement of interest. See Bourekis v. Commissioner, 110 T.C. 20 (1998); Carter v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2014-142. 23 Consequently, we cannot consider whether Petitioner 24 25 should be entitled to an abatement of yet to be assessed interest in this proceeding. 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com Capital Reporting Company 6 1 2 In closing we should note, however, that this Court can acquire jurisdiction to consider the 3 Commissioner's failure to abate interest on a 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 deficiency under procedures described in section 6404. See sec. 6404 (e) (1) , (h) . That process generally begins with the submission of a Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, which can be found, along with the instructions for filing, on the IRS website. To reflect the foregoing, decision will be entered for Respondent. This concludes this Court's oral findings of fact and opinion in this matter. (Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the above- entitled matter was concluded.) - 866.488.DEPO www.CapitalReportingCompany.com