Gerald R. Weiss - Page 5




                                        - 5 -                                         

          See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).  Petitioner            
          bears the burden of showing an abuse of discretion.  See Rule               
          142(a).  Our review is limited to whether there was an abuse of             
          respondent’s discretion, which is a question of fact.  See Estate           
          of Gardner v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989, 1000 (1984).                       
               Section 6404(e)(1) provides that the Commissioner may abate            
          the assessment of interest on any deficiency attributable to any            
          error or delay by an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue            
          Service, acting in his or her official capacity and performing a            
          ministerial act.2  Congress intended abatement of interest to be            
          used in instances “where failure to abate interest would be                 
          widely perceived as grossly unfair.”  H. Rept. 99-426 (1985),               
          1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 844; S. Rept. 99-313 (1985), 1986-3 C.B.               
          (Vol. 3) 208.  Section 6404(a) provides that the Commissioner is            
          authorized to abate the unpaid portion of the assessment of any             
          tax or any liability in respect thereof that is (1) excessive in            







               2  In 1996, sec. 6404(e) was amended under sec. 301 of the             
          Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452, 1457            
          (1996), to permit respondent to abate interest with respect to an           
          “unreasonable” error or delay resulting from “managerial” and               
          ministerial acts.  The new provision applies to interest accruing           
          with respect to deficiencies or payments for tax years beginning            
          after July 30, 1996; therefore, it is not applicable to the case            
          at bar.                                                                     





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011