- 11 -
beginning date for abatement because petitioners found that the 3
years and 7 months prior to that date was a “reasonable time” for
audit and settlement.
Petitioners’ primary argument is that respondent abused his
discretion because he failed to adequately explain his use of
discretion in the final determination or during trial.
Petitioners rely heavily upon the case of Jacobs v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-123, in this argument. Specifically, petitioners
emphasize our holding with respect to the Commissioner’s refusal
to abate interest for portions of the period September 1987
through November 17, 1991. This was a period for which the
record provided few details concerning the actions of the IRS.
Furthermore, the final determination letters issued to the
taxpayers had cursorily concluded: “We did not find any errors
or delays that merit abatement of interest in our review of
available records and other information”. Noting that the
Commissioner is best able to know what actions were taken by IRS
officers and employees, we concluded that in regard to those
specific periods for which he failed to explain the basis of his
refusal to abate interest, the refusal was an abuse of
discretion.
We agree with petitioners that, as was the case in Jacobs,
the language in the determination letter was rather cursory and
possibly left out many details concerning respondent’s inquiry
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011