William and Helen Woodral - Page 7




                                        - 7 -                                         

               Section 6404(g) clearly grants the Court jurisdiction to               
          review the Commissioner's failure to abate interest under all               
          subsections of section 6404 and does not limit the Court's                  
          jurisdiction to review cases arising only under section 6404(e).            
          Respondent, on brief, acknowledges that the language of section             
          6404(g) does not specifically limit the Court's jurisdiction to             
          the review of denials of claims for abatement brought under                 
          section 6404(e) but argues that the legislative history                     
          demonstrates that it was the intent of Congress to impose such a            
          limit on the Court's jurisdiction.                                          
               Respondent's argument fails.  The language of the statute is           
          clear; therefore, we do not look to the legislative history to              
          determine the statute's meaning.5  See Sullivan v. Stroop, supra;           
          United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., supra at 241-242; see              
          also Blum v. Stenson, supra; United States v. Lewis, supra.                 
               Respondent's interpretation of section 6404(g) is contrary             
          to the clear language of the statute.  We reject respondent's               
          contention that we lack jurisdiction to review the denial of                
          petitioners' request for abatement of interest to the extent                
          their claim arises under section 6404(a).  In light of                      
          petitioners' timely petition for review, we hold that petitioners           






               5  Even if we were to look at the legislative history,                 
          however, it does not contradict the language of the statute.                

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011