- 8 -
decision concerning the proper application of Federal tax law (or
other Federal or state law) is not a ministerial act. Id.
Even where errors or delays are present, the Commissioner’s
decision to abate interest remains discretionary. See sec.
6404(e)(1); Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-138, affd.
389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004). When Congress enacted section
6404(e), it did not intend the provision to be used routinely to
avoid payment of interest. Rather, Congress intended abatement
of interest to be used only where failure to do so “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.
II. Standard of Review and Burden of Proof
When reviewing the Commissioner’s determination not to abate
interest, we apply an abuse of discretion standard. See sec.
6404; Camerato v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-28. The taxpayer
bears the burden of proof with respect to establishing an abuse
of discretion. See Rule 142(a). In order to prevail, the
taxpayer must establish that in not abating interest the
Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously,
6(...continued)
Admin. Regs. The final regulations generally apply to interest
accruing on deficiencies or payments of tax described in sec.
6212(a) for taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996, and do
not apply to the years at issue in this case. See sec. 301.6404-
2(d)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007