Scanlon White, Inc. - Page 5

                                        - 5 -                                         
                         (B) any payment of any tax described in                      
                    section 6212(a) to the extent that any                            
                    unreasonable error or delay in such payment is                    
                    attributable to such officer or employee being                    
                    erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial                 
                    or managerial act,                                                
               the Secretary may abate the assessment of all or any                   
               part of such interest for any period.  * * *                           
               In Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19 (1999), this Court             
          held that respondent is authorized under section 6404(e) to abate           
          interest only on any “deficiency” or payment of tax relating to             
          income, estate, gift, generation skipping, or certain excise                
          taxes.  See id. at 25.  This Court stated:                                  
                    Based on our review of section 6404(e) and the                    
               Code sections it references, we hold that the                          
               Commissioner lacks the authority to abate assessments                  
               of interest on employment taxes under section 6404(e).                 
               As the Commissioner has no authority to abate                          
               assessments of interest on employment taxes under                      
               section 6404(e), the Commissioner could not have                       
               committed an abuse of discretion–-a person with no                     
               discretion simply cannot abuse it.  [Id.]                              
          Petitioner does not distinguish this case from Woodral.  Rather,            
          it asks us to overrule that decision of this Court.  We decline             
          to do so.                                                                   
               We followed Woodral in Miller v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.              
          2000-196, affd. 310 F.3d 640 (9th Cir. 2002).  In affirming our             
          decision, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit described              
          Miller’s argument in terms identical to those made by petitioner            
          in this case.  The Court of Appeals held that the implementing              
          regulation, section 301.6404-2(a)(1)(i), Admin. & Proced. Regs.,            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011