Richard Mark Hansen - Page 14

                                       - 13 -                                         
               The record before the Court establishes that petitioner                
          raised the interest abatement issue at his CDP Hearing.  With               
          regard to 1997, the carryback year, petitioner argued that the              
          interest accrued prior to the carryback on the amount of the                
          carryback should be eliminated.  A taxpayer, however, is liable             
          for interest on a deficiency until the deficiency is paid or                
          otherwise abated.  Section 6601(d)(1) provides that a reduction             
          in tax by reason of a carryback of an NOL does not affect the               
          computation of statutory interest due for the period ending with            
          the filing date for the taxable year in which the NOL arose.  See           
          also Manning v. Seely Tube & Box Co., 338 U.S. 561, 570 (1950);             
          Med James, Inc. v. Commissioner, 121 T.C. 147, 153 n.9 (2003);              
          Intel Corp. & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 90, 95                
          (1998).                                                                     
               The Court considers petitioner’s request for abatement of              
          the interest for 1997, 1998, and 2000, to be a request for                  
          abatement of interest under section 6404, and 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 unreasonable error or delay              
          attributable to respondent in performing a ministerial or                   






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011