- 5 -
filed a petition to this Court seeking review of respondent’s
failure to abate interest.
OPINION
This Court may order an abatement of interest only where
there is an abuse of discretion by the Commissioner in refusing
to abate interest. See sec. 6404(i). In order to show an abuse
of discretion, petitioner must establish that respondent
exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without
sound basis in fact or law. See Rule 142(a); Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Section 6404(e)(1) provides, in pertinent part, that the
Commissioner has discretionary authority to abate part or all of
an assessment of interest on: (1) Any deficiency attributable to
any error or delay by the Commissioner’s officers or employees in
performing a ministerial act; or (2) any payment of tax to the
extent any error or delay in such payment is attributable to such
officers or employees being erroneous or dilatory in performing a
ministerial act.2 An error or delay by the Commissioner can be
taken into account only if it occurs after the Commissioner has
contacted the taxpayer in writing with respect to the deficiency
2In 1996, sec. 6404(e)(1) was amended by the Taxpayer Bill
of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1452, 1457
(1996), to allow the Commissioner to abate interest for an
“unreasonable” error or delay resulting from “managerial” and
ministerial acts. The amendment is in effect for tax years
beginning after July 30, 1996, and thus is not applicable in this
case. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 25 n.8 (1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011