- 9 -
See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52
Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). The mere passage of time does
not establish error or delay in performing a ministerial act.
Lee v. Commissioner, supra at 150.
When Congress enacted section 6404(e), Congress did not
intend that taxpayers use the provision to routinely avoid the
payment of interest. Rather, Congress intended abatement of
interest only where failure to do so “would be widely perceived
as grossly unfair.” H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 3) 1, 208. Section 6404(e) affords a taxpayer relief only
if no significant aspect of the error or delay can be attributed
to the taxpayer. In addition, interest may be abated only after
the Commissioner has contacted the taxpayer in writing about the
deficiency or payment in question.6 See sec. 6404(e).
This Court may order an abatement of interest if
respondent’s failure to abate interest was an abuse of
discretion. Sec. 6404(h). In order to prove an abuse of
discretion, petitioners must show that respondent exercised
discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in
fact or law. Rule 142(a)(1); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
6In this case, respondent’s first contact with petitioners
was the June 14, 1994, letter.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011