- 10 -
Even where errors or delays are present, the decision to
abate interest remains discretionary. Sec. 6404(e)(1). This
Court may order an abatement only where the Commissioner’s
failure to abate interest was an abuse of that discretion. Sec.
6404(i)(1). The Commissioner’s exercise of discretion is
entitled to due deference; in order to prevail, the taxpayer must
demonstrate that in not abating interest, the Commissioner
exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without
sound basis in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at
23.
We note at the outset that petitioners’ arguments are
fundamentally flawed because they fail to assert any correlation
between an error or delay in the performance of a ministerial act
by respondent and a specific period of time over which interest
should be abated as a result of that error or delay. Such a
correlation is required for abatement under section 6404(e).
Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220. It is clear from
the record that petitioners are seeking an abatement of interest
not because of any specific ministerial act, but merely because
they are dissatisfied with the amount of time it took to resolve
their case. In fact, petitioners stated in the abatement request
submitted to the IRS that they chose January 1, 1992, as the
3(...continued)
interest accruing with respect to deficiencies or payments for
taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996. Id. par. (d).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011