- 8 -
writing about the deficiency or payment in question. See H.
Rept. 99-426, supra at 844, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 844 (“This
provision does not therefore permit the abatement of interest for
the period of time between the date the taxpayer files a return
and the date the IRS commences an audit, regardless of the length
of that time period.”).
The Commissioner’s authority to abate an assessment of
interest involves the exercise of discretion, and we must give
due deference to the Commissioner’s discretion. Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999); Mailman v. Commissioner, 91
T.C. 1079, 1082 (1988). In order to prevail petitioner must
prove that the Commissioner abused his discretion by exercising
it arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or
law. Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 23; Mailman v.
Commissioner, supra at 1084; see also sec. 6404(h)(1); Rule
142(a). We have jurisdiction to decide whether the Commissioner
abused his discretion under section 6404(h)(1).
At trial petitioners disputed all interest accrued on their
2000 tax liability. Section 6404(e) requires a direct link
between the error or delay and the specific time period during
which interest accrued. See Braun v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2005-221. A request demanding abatement of all interest charged
does not satisfy the required link; it merely represents a
request for exemption from interest. Id.; see also Donovan v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011