- 7 -
Our jurisdiction is limited, however, to deciding whether
respondent abused his discretion by refusing to abate interest.
See sec. 6404(g)(1). As we evaluate respondent’s exercise of
discretion, we are mindful that Congress intended for respondent
to abate interest under section 6404(e) “where failure to abate
interest would be widely perceived as grossly unfair”, but that
the abatement provision should not “be used routinely to avoid
payment of interest”. H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3
C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 3) 1, 208; see also Krugman v. Commissioner, supra.
In this case, petitioners object to the assessment of
interest against them because they made a good faith effort to
comply with the law as it existed when their 1993 return was
filed. They made full disclosure of their position and the legal
and factual basis for it on their 1993 return, even attaching
copies of the case on which they relied. They contend that the
assessment of interest against them is unfair and, therefore,
should be abated.
Although we understand petitioners’ frustration and
empathize with their position, petitioners have not argued that
any employee of respondent erred in performing a ministerial act
or delayed performing a ministerial act as required by section
6404(e)(1). An examination of the facts in this case reveals
there was no such error. The term “ministerial act” is defined
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011