[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
FILED
No. 04-13378 U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
MAY 12, 2005
THOMAS K. KAHN
U.S. TAX Court No. 11382-01L
CLERK
CHARLES R. GODWIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
-------------------------------------------------------------
________________________
No. 04-13382
________________________
U.S. TAX Court No. 498-02
CHARLES R. GODWIN,
LINDA S. GODWIN,
Petitioners-Appellants,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
-----------------------------------------------------------
________________________
No. 04-13391
________________________
U.S. TAX Court No. 14817-02L
LINDA S. GODWIN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________
Appeals from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
_________________________
(May 12, 2005)
Before ANDERSON, HULL and RONEY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Taxpayers appeal from adverse decisions in the Tax Court in these
consolidated cases. After oral argument and careful review, we conclude that the
2
judgment of the Tax Court is due to be affirmed. It appears that taxpayers have not
challenged the penalty assessed for their failure to pay estimated taxes, and in any
event, any such challenge would clearly be without merit. With respect to
taxpayers’ challenge to the penalty for failure to timely pay taxes, the Tax Court
found that there was not reasonable cause. We readily conclude that that finding is
not clearly erroneous. Similarly, the Tax Court found that there was not reasonable
cause for taxpayers’ failure to file in timely fashion, and we again conclude that the
Tax Court’s finding is not clearly erroneous.
Taxpayers are apparently seeking to challenge the Tax Court’s refusal to
abate the accrual of interest because of presidentially declared disasters. We note
that taxpayers were allowed abatement of interest during the one month referred to
in the IRS newsletter. However, we cannot discern any intelligible argument in
taxpayers’ initial brief to support any additional abatement.1 Accordingly, we
decline to address the issue. Moreover, any such abatement of interest would
apparently apply only in circumstances where the IRS extended not only the time to
file, but also the time for payment, and it does not appear that there has been any
extension of time for payment in this case.
1
In light of our disposition, we express no opinion on the Tax Court’s comments
with respect to its jurisdiction of the abatement issue.
3
With respect to taxpayers’ challenge to the levy, the Tax Court held that
taxpayer had waived any such challenge by failing to raise same at the appropriate
time in the Tax Court. We conclude that it is appropriate to honor the Tax Court’s
enforcement of its prudential rule. The Tax Court made findings of fact denying
each of the casualty losses claimed by taxpayers. We cannot conclude that the Tax
Court’s findings are clearly erroneous.
Any other arguments asserted by taxpayers on appeal are rejected without
need for further discussion. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tax Court is
AFFIRMED.
4