- 12 -
hearing relating to interest abatement. Moreover, there is no
reference in the notice of determination that petitioner
requested interest abatement. Other than his own testimony, the
record does not establish that petitioner raised interest
abatement in his CDP hearing such that it would be subject to
review in this collection proceeding. See Magana v.
Commissioner, supra; Miller v. Commissioner, supra; see also sec.
301.6330-1(f)(2), Q&A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs.
In any event, assuming arguendo that the record established
that petitioner raised interest abatement at the CDP hearing,
that we have jurisdiction under section 6404 to consider
petitioner’s request for interest abatement, see Washington v.
Commissioner, 120 T.C. 114, 123-124 (2003); Katz v. Commissioner,
supra at 340-341, and that respondent’s workload priorities may
have constituted a managerial act, see sec. 301.6404-2(b)(1),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.,5 we conclude that petitioner failed to
establish that respondent abused his discretion in failing to
abate interest under section 6404.
Essentially, petitioner failed to demonstrate that he would
have (or could have) paid his tax liabilities if the Appeals
officer had begun working on petitioner’s case as early as
5 We note that Form 4340, Certificate of Assessments,
Payments, and Other Specified Matters, shows that respondent
abated interest for 1999 on Oct. 28 and Nov. 11, 2002, for
reasons unexplained in the record.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011