1997 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 54">*54 H submitted requests for abatement of interest to the Internal Revenue Service prior to July 30, 1996, the date of enactment of
109 T.C. 92">*92 OPINION
COHEN,
Petitioners are husband and wife who resided in Brooklyn, New York, at the time the petition was filed.
On August 13, 1995, petitioner Robert Banat submitted requests for abatement of interest to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursuant to This is your NOTICE OF DISALLOWANCE as required by law. We are disallowing your claim for abatement of interest, under We did not find any errors or delays relating1997 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 54">*57 to the performance of a ministerial act. If you disagree with our denial of your abatement of interest claim, and you meet the eligibility requirements described below, you may request review of our denial in the Tax Court. Your request for Tax Court review must be received by the Tax Court within 180 days of the date of this disallowance notice.
Petitioners filed their petition on February 5, 1997, which date is 89 days after the mailing of the Notice of Disallowance.
On April 18, 1997, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Therein respondent seeks dismissal as to petitioner Robert Banat on the ground that his requests for abatement of interest were submitted prior to the effective date of
This case presents an issue of first impression concerning the effective date of (g) Review of Denial of Request for Abatement of Interest.-- (1) In General.--The Tax Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement, if such action is brought within 180 days after the date of the mailing of the Secretary's final determination not to abate such interest.
Respondent's position in this case is that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of petitioner Robert Banat's requests for abatement of interest because the requests were submitted prior to July 31, 1996. Petitioners object on the basis that they were issued a notice of final determination that specifically authorizes the filing1997 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 54">*59 of a petition with this Court.
This Court is a court of limited jurisdiction and may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly provided by statute.
As provided by TBOR 2 section 302, our jurisdiction applies to requests for abatement of interest after July 30, 1996. According to respondent, TBOR 2 section 302 precludes judicial review of all requests for abatement of interest submitted to the IRS prior to July 31, 1996. With respect to 109 T.C. 92">*95 requests made and denied prior to July 31, 1996, we agree. See
We decline, however, to interpret the effective date provision to preclude jurisdiction with respect to requests for abatement of interest pending with the IRS on July 31, 1996. TBOR 2 is intended by the Congress "to provide for increased protections of taxpayer rights in complying with the Internal Revenue Code and in dealing with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in its administration of the1997 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 54">*60 tax laws." H. Rept. 104-506, at 22 (1996),
In this case, petitioner Robert Banat's requests for abatement of interest were pending on July 31, 1996, and denied on November 8, 1996. Respondent issued a "Notice of Disallowance" that constituted a final determination not to abate interest pursuant to
With respect to petitioner Marie Banat, no request for abatement of interest was ever made to the IRS and no notice of final determination not to abate interest pursuant to
109 T.C. 92">*96 To reflect the foregoing,
