- 7 -
employee of the Internal Revenue Service * * * in performing a
ministerial act,” or (B) an error or delay in payment of tax is
attributable to such officer or employee being erroneous or
dilatory in performing a ministerial act. “[A]n error or delay
shall be taken into account only if no significant aspect of such
error or delay can be attributed to the taxpayer involved”. Sec.
6404(e)(1).5
This Court has jurisdiction to order an abatement of
interest only when a taxpayer can show that the Commissioner has
abused his discretion in refusing a taxpayer’s request to abate
interest. Sec. 6404(i). To show an abuse of discretion, a
taxpayer must establish that respondent exercised his discretion
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.
Rule 142(a); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999)
(citing Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082 (1988)).
Because Congress did not intend for section 6404(e) to be
routinely used to avoid the payment of interest, we order
abatement only “‘where failure to abate interest would be widely
perceived as grossly unfair.’” Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C.
5In 1996, sec. 6404(e)(1) was amended by the Taxpayer Bill
of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996), to
allow the Commissioner to abate interest for an “unreasonable”
error or delay resulting from “managerial” and ministerial acts.
The amendment applies to interest accruing on deficiencies for
the tax years beginning after July 30, 1996, and is, accordingly,
not applicable to this case. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19, 25 n.8 (1999).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011