- 8 -
interest would be widely perceived as grossly unfair.” S. Rept.
99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208; H. Rept. 99-
426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844. We have
jurisdiction to order an abatement of interest where the
Commissioner’s failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. Sec.
6404(i)(1).4
Petitioner seeks an abatement of all interest accrued with
respect to the fraud penalties for 1989 and 1990, in effect
claiming that the abatement should cover the entire period back
to the due date of the returns for those years. Invoking section
301.6404-2T, Example (2), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
supra,5 petitioner contends that respondent’s October 4, 1999
issuance of the notice of deficiency determining the 1989 and
1990 fraud penalties was a ministerial act that was improperly
delayed, since respondent possessed all information and had
completed all consultations with respect to these penalties by
August 1995. Further, petitioner argues, the imposition of
interest in these circumstances would be “widely perceived as
grossly unfair” because respondent delayed asserting the 1989 and
1990 fraud penalties as a “litigation tactic” in the proceedings
4 In 2002, sec. 6404(i) was redesignated sec. 6404(h).
Victims of Terrorism Tax Relief Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-134,
sec. 112(d)(1)(B), 115 Stat. 2434 (2002).
5 For taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996, this
regulation has been amended and made final. See sec. 301.6404-
2(d), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011