- 10 -
Congress intended section 6404(e) to be availed of where the
disallowance of a taxpayer’s request for abatement “would be
widely perceived as grossly unfair.” H. Rept. 99-426, at 844
(1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208
(1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208. Section 6404(e) was not
conceived of as an expedient to “routinely * * * avoid payment of
interest”. Id.
Our jurisdiction to order an abatement of interest is
circumscribed to those instances where respondent’s failure to do
so is an abuse of discretion. Sec. 6404(h)(1). Our review of
respondent’s determination, to which we accord due deference, is
oriented to the particular facts presented by each case. Jacobs
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123. For the reasons discussed
below, respondent’s failure to abate the assessment of interest
on petitioners’ deficiencies was not arbitrary, capricious, or
without sound basis in fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner,
112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Generally, the mere passage of time during the litigation
phase of a tax dispute does not establish error or delay by
respondent in performing a ministerial act. Lee v. Commissioner,
113 T.C. 145, 150 (1999). During the late 1970s and throughout
the 1980s, the proliferation of abusive tax shelters generated a
myriad of tax shelter cases. See Beagles v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-67. The delay in assessment of petitioners’ 1985 and
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011