- 4 - Petitioners filed a timely petition for review of respondent’s denial of their request for abatement of interest. The following is the centerpiece of petitioners’ argument: “From my experience the average amount of time required for an audit is from three to six months after the agent has started the case.” Since the examination process took more than 6 months, petitioners assert that respondent unduly delayed the process. Respondent contends that he did not abuse his discretion in denying petitioners’ request. Further, respondent argues that petitioners have not established that there was an error or delay as a result of a ministerial act. Discussion Section 6404(g) (redesignated as subsection 6404(i)), enacted by section 302(a) of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR2), Pub. L. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996), provides the Tax Court with authority to review the Commissioner’s denial of a taxpayer’s request for abatement of interest. This Court may order an abatement where the Commissioner’s failure to abate interest was an abuse of discretion. See sec. 6404(g). 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. See Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 239 (1999); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011