- 4 -
The primary issue remaining before us on the instant motion
is whether respondent, as a matter of law, committed an abuse of
discretion in declining to abate interest under section 6404(e).
That section provides, insofar as here relevant, for abatement of
interest where the interest is attributable to an unreasonable
delay by respondent’s representatives in performing managerial or
ministerial acts.
On June 11, 2007, respondent served interrogatories on
petitioner seeking to establish the factual basis for
petitioner’s claim to interest abatement. Petitioner’s responses
to the interrogatories establish that the only ground for
petitioner’s claim to interest abatement is the contention that
respondent’s underlying tax deficiency determination against
petitioner for 2002 was erroneous. Petitioner states: “As [the
case] relates to interest abatement, if the deficiency balance is
incorrect * * *, neither the principal nor the interest should
stand and both should be abated.” Petitioner makes no claim
which would entitle petitioner to interest abatement.
As we held in our prior opinion, because respondent’s
Appeals officer took into account and properly considered
applicable law and administrative procedures, because issues
raised by petitioner were considered and properly rejected, and
because respondent’s proposed levy action balanced the need for
efficient collection with the intrusiveness of a levy, see sec.
6330(c)(3), there occurred in this case no abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008