- 6 -
cases because petitioner requests that all interest with respect
to the deficiencies be abated.4 In effect, petitioner is not so
much seeking an abatement of interest as he is an exemption from
it. Characterized in that manner, and among other infirmities5,
the scope of petitioner’s request, simply put, is beyond that
contemplated by the statute, which the Congress did not intend
would “be used routinely to avoid payment of interest”. H. Rept.
99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-
313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208. Respondent’s
failure to abate interest as requested in petitioner’s claims is
supported not only by the overly broad scope of those claims, but
for other reasons, as discussed below in the context of specific
time frames.
Subject to other requirements, under 6404(e) a taxpayer is
entitled to an abatement of assessed interest on a deficiency
only for any period starting “after the Internal Revenue Service
has contacted the taxpayer in writing with respect to such
4There are variances between the relief requested in
petitioner’s claims for abatement and the relief requested in
petitioner’s brief. Because we review respondent’s failure to
abate interest for abuse of discretion, we focus upon the claims
for abatement. Cf. Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. ___ (2000).
5The petitions suggest that because the deficiencies
reflected in the stipulated decisions entered in the deficiency
cases are less than the deficiencies determined in the notices of
deficiency upon which those cases were based, respondent erred
within the meaning of section 6404(e)(1). The pure folly of this
position is reflected by its abandonment on brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011