- 17 - to accrue on the due date of the return for such tax and continues to accrue, compounding daily, until payment is made. See secs. 6601(a), 6622(a). This Court may order an abatement of interest only if there is an abuse of discretion by the Commissioner in failing to abate interest. See sec. 6404(i), formerly sec. 6404(g). In order to demonstrate an abuse of discretion, a taxpayer must prove that the Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Rule 142(a); Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149 (1999); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). The Commissioner has the authority to abate, in whole or in part, an assessment of interest on a payment of income tax to the extent that an error or delay in such payment is attributable to an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), acting in his or her official capacity, being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act. See sec. 6404(e)(1)(B).11 An error or delay by the Commissioner can be taken into account only: (1) If it occurs after the Commissioner 11 Sec. 6404(e) was amended in 1996 by TBOR 2 sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996), to permit the Commissioner to abate interest with respect to an “unreasonable” error or delay resulting from “managerial” or ministerial acts. The amendment applies to interest accruing with respect to deficiencies or payments for taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996; accordingly, the amendment is inapplicable in the present case. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 25 n.8 (1999).Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011