Marjorie Cathey Miller - Page 4

                                                - 4 -                                                  
            petitioner was informed that, to pursue the matter further, she                            
            had to pay the balance due and submit a claim for refund on Form                           
            843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement.  On or about                              
            May 16, 1994, petitioner submitted a check to respondent for                               
            $21,706.47, paying the full amount of tax, penalty, and interest                           
            owing on the unpaid employment tax liabilities.                                            
                  On May 15, 1996, petitioner submitted eight separate Forms                           
            843 seeking abatement of interest assessed on the employment tax                           
            liabilities.  On November 12, 1998, respondent mailed to                                   
            petitioner a final determination denying petitioner’s claim for                            
            interest abatement.  Petitioner filed a petition to contest                                
            respondent’s determination not to abate interest under section                             
            6404(e)(1) for the taxable years in issue, claiming that                                   
            respondent’s denial was an abuse of discretion.                                            
                  Respondent argues that there was no abuse of discretion                              
            under section 6404(e) because respondent is not authorized under                           
            section 6404(e)(1) to abate interest assessed with respect to                              
            employment taxes.  Respondent relies on our holding in Woodral v.                          
            Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19 (1999).  Petitioner argues that Woodral                          
            was incorrectly decided, that respondent has the authority to                              
            abate interest on employment taxes, and that respondent’s failure                          
            to abate the interest in this case under section 6404(e)(1) was                            
            an abuse of discretion.                                                                    

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011