- 12 -
section 6404(i)6 to review the Commissioner’s denial of a
taxpayer’s request for abatement of interest. “The bill grants
the Tax Court jurisdiction to determine whether the IRS’s failure
to abate interest for an eligible taxpayer was an abuse of
discretion.” H. Rept. 104-506, supra at 28, 1996-3 C.B. at 76.
The Court may order abatement only where the Commissioner’s
failure to abate interest was an abuse of discretion. Sec.
6404(i). The taxpayer has the burden of proof to demonstrate
that the Commissioner, in failing to abate interest, “exercised
his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis
in fact or law.” Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23
(1999); see also Hanks v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-319.
III. Petitioner Has Not Shown Any Genuine Issue of Material Fact.
After being advised by this Court to review our Rules on
summary judgment (which are available from the Clerk of Court and
on the Internet, to which petitioner indicated he has access),
petitioner failed to submit an affidavit or any other evidence to
support his allegations. Because petitioner would bear the
burden of proof at trial on all issues, summary judgment is
mandated here as a matter of procedure under the Supreme Court’s
Celotex standard. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. at 323.
6 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.
3505(a), 3309(a), 112 Stat. 743, 745.
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