- 17 -
488, 493-494 (2002); Miller v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 582, 589
n.2 (2000); see also sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
We turn next to petitioners’ position regarding respondent’s
failure to abate penalties under section 6404.13 The record does
not establish that petitioners raised at their Appeals Office
hearing respondent’s failure to abate penalties under section
12(...continued)
lished that petitioners raised at their Appeals Office hearing
respondent’s failure to abate interest under sec. 6404 with
respect to their taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1998 and (2) that
we concluded that we have jurisdiction under sec. 6404 to con-
sider petitioners’ request that we review such failure, see Katz
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000), on the instant
record, we find that petitioners have not shown that respondent
abused respondent’s discretion in failing to abate interest under
sec. 6404 for any of their taxable years 1994, 1995, and 1998.
See sec. 6404(h). In fact, we find on that record that petition-
ers have failed to establish any error or delay attributable to
an officer or employee of respondent being erroneous or dilatory
in performing (1) a ministerial act within the meaning of sec.
6404(e) requiring an abatement of interest with respect to their
taxable years 1994 and 1995 and (2) a ministerial or managerial
act within the meaning of sec. 6404(e) requiring an abatement of
interest with respect to their taxable year 1998. See Katz v.
Commissioner, supra at 341. In this connection, at trial peti-
tioner Howard Washington (Mr. Washington) testified about several
alleged acts of certain employees of the Internal Revenue Ser-
vice, which petitioners contend require abatement of interest
under sec. 6404. We find that none of the alleged acts about
which Mr. Washington testified qualifies as a ministerial act or
a managerial act within the meaning of sec. 6404(e). See sec.
301.6404-2(b)(1) and (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
13The record does not disclose the nature of the penalties
for which respondent contends petitioners are liable.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011