                     T.C. Memo. 2009-113



                UNITED STATES TAX COURT



             DAVID H. BARAL, Petitioner v.
     COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



Docket No. 546-08.                  Filed May 26, 2009.


     P timely filed his 2001 Federal income tax return
reporting an income tax liability of $3,303. After a
correction of a patent error on P’s return, R
determined P’s tax liability to be $1,076 and issued a
refund to P based on that recalculated liability.
Subsequently, R discovered P had unreported income,
wholly unrelated to the prior adjustment, which
resulted in a deficiency. R determined P’s deficiency
using the correct tax liability less the $1,076 of
liability P had already paid and assessed the
deficiency with interest. Pursuant to I.R.C. sec.
6404, P sought an abatement of interest, arguing that
because P initially reported an income tax liability of
$3,303, R should have taken that into consideration and
should have charged interest only on the amount of the
deficiency that exceeded the $3,303 that P had
originally reported. R denied P’s abatement request.
P petitioned this Court for a review of R’s denial of
abatement of interest.
                               - 2 -

          Held: R did not abuse his discretion in denying
     P’s abatement of interest request and requiring P to
     pay interest on his entire deficiency. Thus, P is not
     entitled to relief under I.R.C. sec. 6404.



     David H. Baral, pro se.

     Andrew M. Stroot, for respondent.



              MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     GUSTAFSON, Judge:   This case is before the Court on

petitioner David H. Baral’s petition for review of the Internal

Revenue Service’s (IRS) failure to abate interest under section

6404.1   The issue for decision is whether the IRS’s denial of

Mr. Baral’s request to abate interest with respect to his income

tax deficiency for 2001 was an abuse of discretion.     We hold that

it was not.

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

     Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.

The stipulation of facts filed November 5, 2008, and the attached

exhibits are incorporated herein by this reference.     At the time

Mr. Baral filed his petition, he resided in Washington, D.C.




     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all citations of sections refer
to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (26 U.S.C.), as amended, and
all citations of Rules refer to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure.
                                 - 3 -

     Mr. Baral timely filed his Form 1040, U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, for tax year 2001.    On that return Mr. Baral

incorrectly computed the taxable portion of his Social Security

benefits, reported too large an amount on line 20b of his return,

and consequently reported a higher income tax liability than he

was liable for with respect to those benefits.    Mr. Baral

reported that his income tax liability for 2001 was $3,303.

Because of this patent defect on the face of Mr. Baral’s 2001

return, the IRS reduced Mr. Baral’s income tax liability to

$1,075.96 to reflect the proper taxable portion of his Social

Security benefits.   On May 20, 2002, the IRS sent Mr. Baral a

letter explaining the changes it had made to his return and

indicating that since Mr. Baral had made $7,038 in total payments

to the IRS–-through withholdings, estimated payments and/or

amounts applied from his 2000 return–-he would be due a larger

refund than he originally reported on his 2001 return.2

     On May 20, 2002, the IRS refunded to Mr. Baral an

overpayment of income tax of $5,962.04.    This was $2,227.04 more

than Mr. Baral was expecting, but Mr. Baral did not contact the

IRS regarding the higher refund amount.



     2
      Mr. Baral originally reported that he overpaid his 2001
taxes by $3,735, i.e., his $7,038 payments less his $3,303 income
tax liability. However, when the IRS reduced Mr. Baral’s income
tax liability to $1,075.96, that increased Mr. Baral’s
overpayment of income tax to $5,962.04, i.e., payments of $7,038
less the adjusted income tax liability of $1,075.96.
                                - 4 -

     Almost 2 years later, on March 1, 2004, the IRS discovered

that Mr. Baral had failed to report $9,552 of pension/annuity

income on his 2001 return.    The IRS issued to Mr. Baral a Notice

CP2000, proposing changes to his 2001 return to reflect the

previously unreported pension/annuity income.    This unreported

income, which was wholly unrelated to the prior adjustment,

resulted in additional tax due from Mr. Baral.    As a result, on

July 26, 2004, the IRS issued to Mr. Baral a statutory notice of

deficiency, in which it determined an income tax deficiency of

$2,640.3   Mr. Baral timely petitioned this Court for a

redetermination of that deficiency at docket No. 20136-04S.

     On November 2, 2005, a stipulated decision was entered in

docket No. 20136-04S, in which Mr. Baral agreed to the full

income tax deficiency that had been determined in the notice of

deficiency--i.e., $2,640.    On the decision document that

Mr. Baral signed, the parties stipulated, inter alia–-

          It is further stipulated that interest will
     be assessed as provided by law on the deficiency
     due from petitioner.

Mr. Baral paid that deficiency in full on or about March 13,

2006.    On June 26, 2006, the IRS assessed the interest of $598.27



     3
      Mr. Baral’s total income tax liability for 2001–-taking
into consideration the proper taxable portion of his Social
Security benefits and the unreported income–-was $3,716. The IRS
retained only $1,075.96 of Mr. Baral’s tax payments after
processing his prior refund, so the resulting deficiency was
$2,640, i.e., $3,716 minus $1,076.
                               - 5 -

due on that deficiency.   Mr. Baral paid the interest in full on

or about July 14, 2006.

     On December 11, 2006, Mr. Baral submitted a Form 843, Claim

for Refund and Request for Abatement, seeking an abatement of a

portion of the interest that was assessed and paid with respect

to the 2001 deficiency.   Mr. Baral’s contention was that the

IRS’s unsolicited adjustment to the taxable portion of his Social

Security benefit resulted in more money being refunded to him in

May 2002 than he had requested on his return.   Consequently, his

2001 deficiency was higher than it would have been if that

adjustment had never been made. Mr. Baral argues that had the IRS

not made the initial adjustment to his return, his deficiency

would have only been $413, i.e., the correct tax liability of

$3,716 less the $3,303 amount Mr. Baral had initially reported as

his income tax liability.   So Mr. Baral contends that the IRS,

instead of charging interest on a deficiency of $2,640, should

have charged interest on a deficiency of only $413.   By letter

dated July 9, 2007, which served as the IRS’s final

determination, the IRS denied Mr. Baral’s request for abatement

of interest.   In support of this denial, the IRS stated:

     •    There was no unreasonable error or delay relating
          to the performance of a ministerial or managerial
          act in processing the examination of your return.

     •    The excess refund you received was the result of
          the Service Center correction of an error you made
          on your 2001 return. You received a correction
          notice which granted an opportunity for your [sic]
                               - 6 -

          to confirm or dispute the correction made. You
          did not return the excess refund until after you
          had been examined and your case processed through
          the Tax Courts.

     On January 7, 2008,4 Mr. Baral timely filed a petition for

this Court’s review of the IRS’s failure to abate interest under

section 6404, disputing the IRS’s determination not to abate and

refund him a portion of the interest he paid on his 2001

deficiency.   Mr. Baral’s petition repeated the same argument he

made on his Form 843, i.e., that because he initially reported an

income tax liability of $3,303, the IRS should have taken that

into consideration and should have charged interest only on a

deficiency amount equal to the correct tax liability less the

$3,303 he had originally reported.

                              OPINION

I.   The Commissioner Has Authority To Abate Interest, and the
     Tax Court Has Authority To Review that Determination.

     Under section 6404(e)(1), the IRS may abate part or all of

an assessment of interest on any deficiency or payment of tax if

(a) either (1) the deficiency was attributable to an unreasonable

error or delay by an IRS official in performing a ministerial or




     4
      The last day on which Mr. Baral had to file a petition with
the Tax Court was January 5, 2008. However, because January 5,
2008, fell on a Saturday, Mr. Baral had until the next business
day, i.e., Monday, January 7, 2008, to timely file his petition.
See Rule 25(a)(2)(B).
                               - 7 -

managerial act,5 or (2) an error or delay by the taxpayer in

paying his or her tax is attributable to an IRS official’s being

erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial or managerial

act; and (b) the taxpayer caused no significant aspect of the

delay.   Interest can be abated only after the Commissioner has

contacted the taxpayer in writing about the deficiency or payment

in question.   See sec. 6404(e) (flush language); Krugman v.

Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230 (1999).

     If the IRS denies the abatement request, the taxpayer may

petition the Tax Court for a review of that determination.

Sec. 6404(h)(1); see Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501, 506

(2007) (holding that the Tax Court provides the exclusive forum

for judicial review of the IRS’s refusal to abate interest).

Since the IRS’s authority to abate interest is discretionary and

not mandatory, the Tax Court may order the abatement of interest

only if it finds that the IRS abused its discretion by failing to

abate the interest.   Sec. 6404(h)(1); sec. 301.6404-2(a)(1),



     5
      A “ministerial act” is defined as a “procedural or
mechanical act that does not involve the exercise of judgment of
discretion, and that occurs during the processing of a taxpayer’s
case after all prerequisites to the act * * * have taken place.”
Sec. 301.6404-2(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. A “managerial act”
is defined as “an administrative act that occurs during the
processing of a taxpayer’s case involving the temporary or
permanent loss of records or the exercise of judgment or
discretion related to management of personnel.” Sec. 301.6404-
2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Under these definitions, a
decision concerning the proper application of Federal tax law is
neither a managerial nor a ministerial act.
                                - 8 -

Proced. & Admin. Regs. (26 C.F.R.)      In order to prevail, a

taxpayer must prove that the IRS exercised its discretion

arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.

See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).

      In Mr. Baral’s case, we have jurisdiction to determine

whether the IRS’s failure to abate interest under section

6404(e)(1) was an abuse of discretion because (i) Mr. Baral filed

a claim with the IRS under section 6404(e) seeking an abatement

of interest, (ii) the IRS issued a final determination which

disallowed Mr. Baral’s claim to abate interest, and (iii)

Mr. Baral timely filed a petition to review the failure to abate

interest.   See sec. 6404(h).

II.   The IRS’s Refusal To Abate a Portion of Mr. Baral’s
      Interest With Respect to The 2001 Deficiency Was Not an
      Abuse of Discretion.

      For a taxpayer to be eligible for an abatement of interest

on a deficiency, the Code requires that the accrual of interest

result from an unreasonable error or delay due to a managerial or

ministerial act.   Sec. 6404(e)(1).     Mr. Baral has neither alleged

nor shown that there was any managerial or ministerial act during

the processing of his case that resulted in the accrual of

interest.   Instead, Mr. Baral contends that the IRS should be

allowed to charge deficiency interest only on a $413 deficiency,

as opposed to a $2,640 deficiency.      Mr. Baral’s position is not

unsympathetic:   He initially reported $3,303 as his income tax
                                - 9 -

liability.   He was willing to pay and did pay that amount as his

tax liability.    But for the IRS’s reduction of his income tax

liability–-which Mr. Baral never requested–-the IRS would have

retained $3,303 of his tax payments.    Therefore (he reasons), if

the IRS later determined that Mr. Baral was deficient in his

income tax payments, then most of that deficiency was

attributable not to Mr. Baral’s underreporting but to the IRS’s

unsolicited refund.

     Unfortunately, there are several flaws in Mr. Baral’s

position.    First, the reduction that the IRS made in Mr. Baral’s

income tax liability for 2001 was entirely proper, since it was

due to a patent error on the return.    Mr. Baral reported his

Social Security income as $16,548 and reported the taxable

portion thereof as $14,070.    The IRS, upon an inspection of the

numbers on Mr. Baral’s return, recognized this as an error and

corrected it.    Mr. Baral makes no argument that the IRS’s

correction of the taxable portion of his Social Security benefits

was incorrect; he complains only that the IRS made the correction

of its own accord.    When the IRS accurately spots an error on a

return and fixes it to give the taxpayer a larger refund, the IRS

can hardly be criticized.

     Second, irrespective of the adjustment to the taxable

portion of the Social Security benefits, Mr. Baral had income–-

wholly unrelated to the IRS’s prior adjustment--that he failed to
                               - 10 -

report and that was missing from his 2001 return because of his

own error.   This discrepancy did not come to light until after

the IRS had made the initial correction to Mr. Baral’s return and

had issued him a refund based on that corrected information.

Mr. Baral makes no argument that the failure to report his

pension/annuity income was due to anything other than his own

error.

     Third, Mr. Baral desires for statutory interest to be

assessed on an amount–-$413–-that was not the amount determined

to be his deficiency.   In Mr. Baral’s deficiency suit at docket

No. 20136-04S, the Court entered a stipulated decision that

Mr. Baral had an income tax deficiency of $2,640.   Mr. Baral

stipulated the truism that the deficiency would bear interest “as

provided by law”.   The relevant law here is section 6601(a),

which provides that statutory interest shall be charged on the

amount of the deficiency, until the deficiency is paid in full.

By entering into a stipulated decision in docket No. 20136-04S,

Mr. Baral agreed that his deficiency for 2001 was $2,640.

Section 6601(a) mandates that interest be charged on that amount,

i.e., the deficiency amount.

     To some extent Mr. Baral’s argument that the deficiency

interest should be charged only on a deficiency of $413 is an

attempt to repudiate the deficiency amount already determined to

be $2,640.   That $413 amount however, is a fictitious
                                 - 11 -

“deficiency” that never existed, and it is the higher amount of

$2,640 that was Mr. Baral’s actual deficiency, as defined in the

statute.   Section 6211(a) defines a deficiency as follows:

          SEC. 6211(a). In General.--For purposes of this title
     in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by
     subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41,
     42, 43, and 44 the term “deficiency” means the amount by
     which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42,
     43, or 44 exceeds the excess of--

                (1) the sum of

                     (A) the amount shown as the tax by the
                taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by
                the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by
                the taxpayer thereon, plus

                     (B) the amounts previously assessed (or
                collected without assessment) as a deficiency,
                over--

                (2) the amount of rebates, as defined in
           subsection (b)(2), made.[6]

Mr. Baral’s deficiency for 2001 was determined as “the amount by

which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B” (i.e., $3,716) exceeds

the sum of “the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his



     6
      The Internal Revenue Code recognizes two types of refunds:
rebate and nonrebate. Acme Steele Co. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-118 (citing O’Bryant v. United States, 49 F.3d 340,
342 (7th Cir. 1995)). A rebate refund is issued on the basis of
a substantive recalculation of a taxpayer’s liability, e.g., the
amount of tax due is less than the tax shown on the return.
Mr. Baral initially reported his tax liability to be $3,303. The
IRS substantively recalculated his liability because of an error
on the return and determined his tax liability to be $1,076.
This recalculation of Mr. Baral’s income tax liability resulted
in an increased refund to Mr. Baral of $2,227. By definition,
this $2,227 was a rebate refund. See sec. 6211(b)(2); Acme
Steele Co. v. Commissioner, supra.
                               - 12 -

return” (i.e., $3,303) over “the amount of rebates * * * made”

(i.e., $2,227).   Therefore, Mr. Baral’s properly computed

deficiency in his deficiency suit at docket No. 20136-04S was, as

it should have been, $2,640.

     Since the IRS properly assessed statutory interest on

Mr. Baral’s deficiency calculated according to the statute, and

since Mr. Baral has neither alleged nor shown that there was any

unreasonable error or delay in performance of a managerial or

ministerial act during the processing of his case that resulted

in the accrual of interest, we cannot find that the IRS abused

its discretion in denying Mr. Baral’s request for abatement under

section 6404(e)(1).

     If Mr. Baral’s abatement request had been treated as a

request for abatement of “the assessment of * * * interest on

[an] erroneous refund” under section 6404(e)(2) (i.e., treating

the interest at issue as attributable to the May 2002 erroneous

refund) instead of as a request for abatement of the assessment

of interest on a deficiency under section 6404(e)(1), then

interest might not have started running against Mr. Baral until

sometime in 2004, and a portion of the interest might be abated

on that ground.   The Court therefore invited the parties to

consider the possible applicability of section 6404(e)(2).

However, as respondent correctly argued, it is section 6404(e)(1)

that, by its terms, addresses abatement of interest when, as
                              - 13 -

here, the interest has been assessed on account of a deficiency.

Section 6404(e)(2) deals with abatement of interest when the IRS

prevails in an erroneous refund suit and interest is assessed

thereafter.   Because the IRS chose to pursue deficiency

procedures against Mr. Baral, interest accrued on the deficiency;

and any abatement of interest--i.e., interest on that

deficiency--must be addressed under section 6404(e)(1), not

section 6404(e)(2).   The IRS considered Mr. Baral’s abatement

request under the proper Code section, section 6404(e)(1), when

making its determination.

III. Conclusion

     The IRS properly assessed interest on Mr. Baral’s 2001

income tax deficiency of $2,640 according to law and according to

his stipulation in docket No. 20136-04S.   His argument that the

IRS should have charged interest on only a hypothetical

deficiency of $413 has no legal basis.   The IRS made no error in

processing the refund that gave rise to the deficiency.    Rather,

the errors here were Mr. Baral’s–-i.e., erroneously computing the

taxable portion of his Social Security benefits and erroneously

omitting his pension/annuity income.   Accordingly, we hold that

the IRS did not abuse its discretion in denying Mr. Baral’s

request for interest abatement under section 6404.
                        - 14 -

To reflect the foregoing,


                                  Decision will be entered

                             for respondent.
