John M. Mekulsia - Page 21

                                       - 21 -                                         
          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.                                                
          B.  Jurisdiction of the Tax Court                                           
               The Tax Court is a court of limited jurisdiction, and we may           
          exercise our jurisdiction only to the extent authorized by                  
          Congress.  Sec. 7442; Naftel v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 527, 529              
          (1985).  In proceedings brought by a taxpayer for a review of the           
          Commissioner’s denial of the taxpayer’s request to abate                    
          interest, as in the present case, the jurisdiction of this Court            
          is limited solely to a determination as to whether the                      
          Commissioner abused his discretion in declining to abate any                
          portion of the interest under section 6404.  See sec. 6404(i);              
          Vanstone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-133.                              
               “When reviewing the Commissioner’s determination pursuant to           
          section 6404, our inquiry is a factual one, and we proceed on a             
          case-by-case basis.”  Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-              
          123.  Since the Commissioner’s power to abate interest involves             
          the exercise of discretion, we give the Commissioner’s                      
          determination due deference.  Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.             
          19, 23 (1999).  We review the Commissioner’s determination not to           
          abate interest applying an abuse of discretion standard.  See               
          sec. 6404(i); Camerato v. Commissioner, supra.                              








Page:  Previous  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011