                        T.C. Memo. 2002-139



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                ROBERT L. STEWART, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 12947-00.              Filed May 31, 2002.


     Robert L. Stewart, pro se.

     Catherine L. Campbell, for respondent.



                        MEMORANDUM OPINION


     RUWE, Judge:   This matter is before the Court on

respondent’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and to

Strike Claim for Abatement of Additions to Tax.   Respondent’s

motion is based on the ground that petitioner, in addition to

seeking abatement of interest, is seeking abatement of an
                                - 2 -

addition to tax under section 6651(a).1   Respondent contends that

this Court lacks jurisdiction to consider petitioner’s claim to

abate an addition to tax.    Respondent is not seeking dismissal of

the request for review of the failure to abate interest.

       On June 22, 2000, respondent issued a notice of final

determination partially allowing petitioner’s request to abate

interest on his 1990 Federal income tax liability.    Petitioner

filed a petition to this Court under section 6404(i)2 and Rules

280-284.    In the petition, petitioner alleged that the amount in

dispute for 1990 was $4,656.86.3   Petitioner identified this

amount as “Interest Billed (+ Any Accrued Interest)”.    Petitioner

disagreed with the amount of the partial allowance and stated

that he believes he is entitled to an abatement of the full

amount because he has paid all his taxes, including additions to

tax.




       1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code currently in effect, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
       2
      Sec. 6404(i) was redesignated sec. 6404(h) by the Victims
of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-134, sec.
112(d)(1)(B), 115 Stat. 2427, 2434-2435.
       3
      In his answer to the petition, respondent alleged that the
$4,656.86 amount shown on the petition refers to interest and
penalties accrued but unpaid on petitioner’s 1990 Federal income
tax liability as of Sept. 4, 2000. Respondent alleged that
$3,706.36 of this amount was attributable to interest, and the
remaining $950.50 was attributable to a “failure to pay penalty”.
                                 - 3 -

     In his motion to dismiss, respondent alleges that the

current balance due from petitioner totals $3,355.17.    Respondent

claims $950.50 of this amount is the balance due on an addition

to tax for 1990 imposed under section 6651(a).    In his response

to respondent’s motion, petitioner does not dispute respondent’s

allegation that $950.50 is attributable to an addition to tax.

Petitioner claims that he was advised that his only recourse in

this matter was to file a petition in the Tax Court, and he asks

the Court to allow him to address whether he is entitled to

abatement of any penalties and additions to tax.

     The Tax Court may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent

authorized by Congress.     Fernandez v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 324,

328 (2000); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 22 (1999).

Section 6404(h) provides this Court with jurisdiction “to

determine whether the Secretary’s failure to abate interest under

this section was an abuse of discretion”.    We have previously

held that we do not have jurisdiction under section 6404 to

review the Commissioner’s failure to abate penalties and

additions to tax.     Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 237

(1999); Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 21 n.4; Hawksley v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-354 n.2; Gross v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2000-44.    Accordingly, we shall grant respondent’s

motion, and the portion of the petition that seeks abatement of
                               - 4 -

any penalties or additions to tax shall be stricken for lack of

jurisdiction.   See Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 21.


                                       An appropriate order will be

                               issued granting respondent’s

                               motion.
