-9-
against his 1990 tax liability.5 We disagree with petitioner
that he is entitled to his requested interest abatement.
Section 6404(e) requires not only the identification of an
error or delay caused by a ministerial act on the Commissioner’s
part, but the identification of a specific period of time over
which interest should be abated as a result of the error or
delay. See, e.g., Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230 (1999);
Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398. In his interest
abatement claim, petitioner failed to show a correlation between
the errors he alleged and any specific period of time. Instead,
he requested the abatement of “any and all” interest accrued on
his 1990 income tax deficiency.6
Respondent has the authority to abate interest accrued as a
result of a ministerial error or delay by his employees only if
5 In reaching a decision under the abuse of discretion
standard, the Court focuses on arguments and information
available to respondent at the time his discretion was exercised.
Sego v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 612 (2000); Donovan v
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220. Because petitioner did not
present his fifth argument in the interest abatement claim, we do
not address that argument.
6 In this regard, we understand petitioner also to be
asserting that he is liable for none of the interest because it
relates to an addition to tax that respondent assessed after the
applicable period of limitations under sec. 6501. As we have
found, the addition to tax was assessed initially on Nov. 18,
1991 (approximately 1 month after petitioner filed his related
return), abated on Aug. 14, 1995, and then reassessed on Oct. 25,
1999. Petitioner’s assertion, which focuses on the applicability
of the addition to tax, is not an appropriate consideration in
this interest abatement proceeding.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011