- 19 -
circumstance where the Commissioner's determination not to abate
interest is an abuse of discretion.
When reviewing the Commissioner's determination pursuant to
section 6404, our inquiry is a factual one, and we proceed on a
case-by-case basis. See Boyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
16. We employ an abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the
Commissioner's determination not to abate interest, and we give
the Commissioner's determination due deference. See Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 22 (1999). The Commissioner, however,
does not have complete latitude. The Court will direct the
Commissioner to abate interest if the Commissioner's exercise of
discretion was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. Indeed, the Court held that the Commissioner's
discretion was abused in Kincaid v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
1999-419, and Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398.
The final determination letters in the instant case merely
conclude: "We did not find any errors or delays that merit
abatement of interest in our review of available records and
other information for the period from 4/15/84 to 11/15/1997."
Other than such cursory language, there is nothing in either the
final determination letters or the testimony and other evidence
that respondent offered at trial describing (1) what respondent
inquired into for the period September 1987 through November 17,
1991, (2) the results of that inquiry, and (3) the basis for
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011