- 7 -
during the processing of a taxpayer’s case after all
prerequisites to the act, such as conferences and review by
supervisors, have taken place. Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C.
145, 150 (1999); see also sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987).
Abatement is available under section 6404(e) only for periods
after the IRS has contacted the taxpayer in writing with respect
to the deficiency or payment. Sec. 6404(e)(1).
This Court may order an abatement of interest only when the
Commissioner has abused his discretion in denying a taxpayer’s
request to abate interest. Sec. 6404(h). To show an abuse of
discretion, a taxpayer must prove that the Commissioner exercised
this discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis
in fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
I. Respondent’s Failure To Notify Petitioner
Petitioner argues that it was an abuse of discretion for
respondent to fail to notify him of his 1983 and 1984 tax
deficiencies until August 20, 1999. The TEFRA procedures require
the Commissioner to notify certain partners of the beginning and
ending of a partnership audit. Sec. 6223(a). The Commissioner
is not required to give notice to a partner if the partnership
has more than 100 partners and the partner has less than a 1-
percent profits interest. Sec. 6223(b)(1). In the case of an
indirect partner owning an interest in the partnership through a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011