- 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