George Ira Nicol - Page 14

                                       - 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