- 13 -
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000), we held that
we have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s determination
not to abate interest that is the subject of his collection
effort. That we have jurisdiction to review the Commissioner’s
refusal to abate interest after a CDP hearing doesn’t relieve
taxpayers from the usual requirement that they raise the issue.
Sec. 301.6320-1(f)(2), A-F5, Proced. & Admin. Regs. (as amended
in 2002); see Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493 (2002)
(only issues raised during the CDP hearing or otherwise brought
to the Appeals Office’s attention generally considered on
review). The Nicholses claim they raised interest abatement as
an issue, the Commissioner claims they didn’t, and the record
doesn’t provide a clear indication either way. Because this is
the Commissioner’s summary judgment motion, we assume that the
Nicholses properly raised the issue, and ask whether the
Commissioner has shown that there is no genuine dispute that his
refusal to abate interest was an abuse of discretion. Rule 121.
We begin with the Code: Section 6404(e)(1) states that
interest may be abated for “any deficiency attributable * * * to
any error or delay by an officer or employee of the Internal
Revenue Service * * * in performing a ministerial act,” though
only when “no significant aspect of such error or delay can be
attributed to the taxpayer * * *.” Sec. 6404(e).5
5 Section 6404(e) was amended in 1996 to allow relief from
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011