- 19 -
and (2) if no significant aspect of the error or delay is
attributable to the taxpayer. See sec. 6404(e)(1); Krugman v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 239 (1999); Nerad v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-376. Section 6404(e)(1) “does not therefore
permit the abatement of interest for the period of time between
the date the taxpayer files a return and the date the IRS
commences an audit, regardless of the length of that time
period.” 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.
Congress did not intend for section 6404(e) to be used
routinely; accordingly, we order abatement only “where failure to
abate interest would be widely perceived as grossly unfair.” Lee
v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149 (1999); H. Rept. 99-426,
supra; S. Rept. 99-313, supra.
Petitioner contends that interest should be abated because:
(1) Respondent erroneously determined petitioner’s income tax
liabilities for 1985 and 1986; (2) respondent seized petitioner’s
records in May 1991 when Mr. Amigron was arrested and then lost
some of those records, thereby depriving petitioner of the
opportunity of defending himself against respondent’s deficiency
determinations; and (3) respondent failed to apply all of
petitioner’s overpayment for 1985 against petitioner’s liability
for 1986, thereby overstating interest for 1986 and depriving
petitioner of the opportunity of immediately paying such interest
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011