- 7 -
the Internal Revenue Service (acting in his official
capacity) in performing a ministerial act, * * *
* * * * * * *
the Secretary may abate the assessment of all or any part of
such interest for any period. For purposes of the
proceeding sentence, an error or delay shall be taken into
account only if no significant aspect of such error or delay
can be attributed to the taxpayer involved, and after the
Internal Revenue Service has contacted the taxpayer in
writing with respect to such deficiency * * *.[2]
Section 6404(i)(1) provides further that "The Tax Court shall
have jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer * * * to
determine whether the Secretary's failure to abate interest * * *
was an abuse of discretion, and may order an abatement".3
While petitioner's application for abatement and petition
for review of respondent's denial encompass all the interest due
on the deficiencies for the 1986 and 1987 tax years, at the
hearing, and, on brief, petitioner has narrowed the scope of his
request for abatement to the period between when the criminal
investigation began (October 13, 1988, the date of the referral
to CID) to when the civil aspects resumed (April 15, 1994, the
2
Congress amended sec. 6404(e) in 1996 to permit
abatement of interest for "unreasonable" error and delay in
performing a "ministerial or managerial" act. Taxpayer Bill of
Rights 2 (TBOR 2), Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301(a)(1) and (2), 110
Stat. 1452, 1457 (1996). That standard, however, applies to tax
years beginning after July 30, 1996. TBOR 2, sec. 301(c), 110
Stat. 1457.
3
Sec. 6404(i) also contains jurisdictional requirements
to bring such an action. Respondent has not raised any
jurisdictional bar, and the Court is satisfied that these
prerequisites have been satisfied.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011