- 5 -
mechanical act that does not involve the exercise of judgment.
See Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145 (1999); sec. 301.6404-2T,
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987). Subject to various procedural and other requirements set
forth in the statute and not here in dispute, the Court has
jurisdiction over any action brought by a taxpayer to determine
whether the Commissioner’s failure to abate interest was an abuse
of discretion. See sec. 6404(g).
As a preliminary point, we note that interest is defined as
“compensation for the use or forbearance of money”. Deputy v.
Dupont, 308 U.S. 488, 498 (1940). “Use or forbearance” connotes
the passage of time. Consistent with the definition of interest,
section 6404(e) requires not only the identification of an error
or delay caused by a ministerial act on the Commissioner’s part,
but the identification of a specific period of time over which
interest should be abated as a result of the error or delay.
See, e.g., Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230 (1999); Douponce
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398.
The expected correlation between the error or delay
attributable to a ministerial act on respondent’s part and a
specific period of time is, for the most part, missing in these
3(...continued)
ministerial acts. The amendment is effective for interest
accruing with respect to deficiencies or payments for tax years
beginning after July 30, 1996, and is therefore inapplicable
here.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011