- 22 -
The taxpayer bears the burden of proof with respect to
establishing an abuse of discretion. Rule 142(a). In order to
prevail, the taxpayer must establish that in not abating interest
the Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. Lee v.
Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149 (1999); Woodral v. Commissioner,
supra at 23.
As a prerequisite to our reviewing the respondent’s actions
for an abuse of discretion, petitioner must show that the
assessment of interest is attributable to some error or delay by
an employee of the IRS in performing a ministerial act. Banat v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-141, affd. 5 Fed. Appx. 36 (2d Cir.
2001). In addition, petitioner must establish a correlation
between the alleged error or delay and a specific period over
which interest should be abated as a result of that error or
delay. Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220.
C. Whether Respondent’s Refusal To Abate Interest From December
17, 1987, to August 31, 1990, Was an Abuse of Discretion
Petitioner argues that errors and delays occurred in the
audit of SGE for the 1985 and 1986 tax years that warrant
interest abatement from December 17, 1987, until August 31, 1990.
Petitioner bases his interest abatement claim on his contentions
that: (1) Respondent had sufficient information as of the date
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011