- 5 -
requirements of Rule 281(b), we ordered petitioner to file a
proper amended petition by January 27, 2004. On February 2,
2004, petitioner’s amended petition was filed.4
On June 2, 2004, respondent’s motion was filed. In his
motion, respondent contends that his determination not to abate
interest was not an abuse of discretion because, under sections
6404(e), 6211, and 6212(a) and Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C.
19 (1999), he lacks the authority to abate assessments of
interest on employment taxes. Respondent also contends that
section 6404(a) does not apply because petitioner “has not
suggested that any of the interest assessed was excessive or
miscalculated.”
On June 28, 2004, petitioner’s response opposing
respondent’s motion was filed. In its response, petitioner
contends that “numerous representatives of the Government have
indicated that what occurred was entirely the Government’s fault
and that the interest should be abated” and that the Service
“ought to be held to their word.” Petitioner also denied
respondent’s contention that section 6404(a) did not apply.
This case was scheduled for hearing at the Court’s September
7, 2004, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, trial session. Counsel for
both parties appeared and presented oral arguments on the motion.
4Respondent does not dispute the timeliness of petitioner’s
amended petition.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011