- 13 - Assuming arguendo (1) that the record before the Court had established that petitioner raised such an issue at his CDP Hearing, (2) that the Court considered petitioner's request to be a request for abatement of interest under section 6404, and (3) that the Court has jurisdiction under section 6404(i) to consider that request, see Washington v. Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 123 n.12 (2003); Katz v. Commissioner, supra at 342-343, the Court concludes that petitioner has failed to prove that respondent abused his discretion in failing to abate interest. Petitioner failed to establish any error or delay attributable to the Appeals officer's being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act requiring the abatement of interest with respect to the taxable year 1993. See sec. 6404(e). Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case Division. Decision will be entered for respondent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Last modified: May 25, 2011