-6-
On June 15, 2000, petitioner submitted to respondent a Form
843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, requesting an
abatement of all interest and additions to tax assessed against
him for 1990. The Appeals Officer Vicki Olsen reviewed
petitioner’s claim and determined that petitioner is entitled to
abatement of interest by $1,707. The abatement was relating to
the interest accrued from January 15, 1996, to October 25, 1999.
OPINION
A. Burden of Proof
Petitioner bears the burden of proving that respondent
abused his discretion by not having abated interest against
petitioner. Rule 142(a); Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149
(1999); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). As will
be shown in the discussion below, petitioner failed to establish
that respondent abused his discretion by denying petitioner’s
interest abatement claim. Therefore, petitioner failed to meet
his burden of proof.
B. Interest Abatement
As in effect for the taxable year in issue, section
6404(e)(1)4 provides that the Secretary may abate all or any part
4 Sec. 6404(e) was amended by Congress in 1996 to permit
abatement of interest for “unreasonable” error and delay in
performing a “ministerial or managerial” act. Taxpayer Bill of
Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301(a), 110 Stat. 1457 (1996).
The amendment applies to taxable years beginning after July 30,
1996, and therefore does not apply to this case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011