- 12 -
(Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 3) 1, 208. Congress intended that abatement would be
used sparingly, and it did not intend that abatement “be used
routinely to avoid payment of interest”. Id.
Petitioner contends that by conceding that the assessment
of interest on the Chans’ tax deficiencies should be abated for
the period between February 2 and December 31, 1996, respondent
has conceded that he abused his discretion when he failed to
abate interest resulting from the erroneous performance of a
ministerial act. Petitioner argues that the question before
the Court relates to the appropriate period for the abatement
of interest and that the resolution of this issue does not
require a further showing under an abuse of discretion
standard. Rather, petitioner maintains that he need only
demonstrate that the interest he seeks to have abated was
attributable to errors or delays by respondent’s employees in
performing ministerial acts.
Respondent maintains that the specified period for which he
agreed to abate the assessment of interest coincides with a
demonstrable lack of respondent’s activity between the
completion of the underlying income tax examination by Mr.
Matos and the response to the request by KSCI and the Chans for
an administrative appeal of the examination findings.
Consequently, respondent reasons that the concession derives
from that delay rather than an admission that respondent
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011