- 5 -
had he “been allowed to consolidate all four years, this matter
would be settled and I wouldn’t be here today.” Petitioners
further contend that their failure to include Social Security
income on their returns was the result of erroneous verbal advice
Barbara Kupersmit received from the “IRS Walk-In Service Center”
in Trenton, New Jersey, when they were completing their 1994
return. Petitioners also suggest they are entitled to interest
abatement because respondent assessed penalties against them for
their failure to make payments in accordance with their
installment agreement despite the fact that respondent conceded
that petitioners were not liable for section 6662 penalties.
Discussion
Pursuant to section 6404(i),1 the Tax Court has the
authority to review the Commissioner’s denial of a taxpayer’s
request for abatement of interest. The Court may order an
abatement where the Commissioner’s failure to abate interest was
an abuse of discretion. Sec. 6404(i). The taxpayer must
demonstrate that the Commissioner, in failing to abate interest,
exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without
sound basis in law or fact. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19, 23 (1999).
1 Sec. 6404(i) was formerly designated sec. 6404(g) but was
redesignated sec. 6404(i) by the Internal Revenue Service
Restructuring & Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, secs.
3305(a), 3309(a), 112 Stat. 685, 743, 745.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011