- 18 -
The Commissioner’s failure to abate such interest is an abuse of
discretion and, if so, then to order an abatement. See Krugman
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 238-240 (1999); Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 25 (1999).
We proceed to consider the application of the foregoing to
the time periods drawn in question.12
b. Time Periods
The petition does not specify the period for which
petitioner seeks interest abatement. The claim for refund
petitioner submitted to respondent appears to be for the period
September 3, 2001, through December 13, 2002. Petitioner’s
response to respondent’s summary judgment motion specifies the
period November 14, 2001, through December 13, 2002.
Respondent’s memorandum deals with the period April 15, 2001,
through December 13, 2002. Petitioner’s memorandum again asks
11(...continued)
(B) Relief.--Rules similar to the rules
of section 6512(b) shall apply for purposes
of this subsection.
(C) Review.--An order of the Tax Court
under this subsection shall be reviewable in
the same manner as a decision of the Tax
Court, but only with respect to the matters
determined in such order.
12 Petitioner does not contend that respondent’s interest
calculations contain computational errors. Compare Goettee v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. at 288, 292, T.C. Memo. 2003-43, Opin.
Part II; affd. 192 Fed. Appx. 212 (4th Cir. 2006), where the
taxpayers did make such a contention.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008