- 9 -
abuse of discretion standard in reviewing the Commissioner’s
determination not to abate interest. Lee v. Commissioner, 113
T.C. 145, 149 (1999); Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 239
(1999).
B. Respondent’s Contentions
Respondent contends that: (1) Respondent’s loss of
petitioners’ 1981-82 amended returns for almost 11 years was not
a ministerial act; (2) petitioners’ delay in paying their 1980
tax was not attributable to respondent’s loss of their amended
1981-82 returns; (3) petitioners’ delay in paying their 1980 tax
was attributable to petitioners’ decision to wait for the
processing of their 1981-82 amended returns; and (4) respondent’s
2(...continued)
payment is attributable to such
officer or employee being dilatory
in performing a ministerial act,
the Secretary may abate the assessment of all
or any part of such interest for any period.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, an
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, and after the Internal Revenue
Service has contacted the taxpayer in writing
with respect to such deficiency or payment.
Congress amended sec. 6404(e) in 1996 to permit abatement of
interest for “unreasonable” error or delay in performing a
“managerial” or ministerial act. Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub.
L. 104-168, sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996). This amendment
applies to interest accruing with respect to deficiencies or
payments for tax years beginning after July 30, 1996, and thus
does not apply in the instant case. See 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 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011