                          T.C. Memo. 1995-479



                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                   EDWARD LEE RENFROW, Petitioner v.
             COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



        Docket No. 13734-94.              Filed October 4, 1995.



        Edward Lee Renfrow, pro se.

        James Gehres, for respondent.



                          MEMORANDUM OPINION

        DINAN, Special Trial Judge:     This case was heard pursuant

to the provisions of section 7443A(b)(3) and Rules 180, 181, and

182.1

        1
          All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code
in effect for the taxable year in issue. All Rule references are
                                                   (continued...)
                                 - 2 -

     Respondent determined a deficiency in petitioner's     1991

Federal income tax in the amount of $308.

          After concessions by petitioner,2 the issue for

decision is whether petitioner must pay interest on the $308

deficiency.

     No facts were stipulated.    Petitioner resided in Colorado

Springs, Colorado, on the date the petition was filed in this

case.

     On his 1990 Federal income tax return petitioner claimed a

deduction for State and local income taxes paid in the amount of

$1,584.   The State and local tax deduction claimed by petitioner

was taken from a Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, which withheld

California State taxes.3

     In 1991, petitioner received a State income tax refund for

1990 in the amount of $1,078.4    Petitioner failed to report the

State income tax refund on his 1991 Federal income tax return.




     1
      (...continued)
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
     2
          At trial petitioner agreed to the deficiency but not
the interest.
     3
          It is not clear from the record why California State
taxes were withheld. On petitioner's 1990 Federal income tax
return petitioner filed as a resident of Tucson, Arizona.
     4
          The refund received by petitioner was in the amount of
$1,178, which included a $100 renter's credit from the State of
California.
                               - 3 -

     At trial, petitioner agreed to pay the deficiency in tax.

However, petitioner refuses to pay the statutory interest accrued

on the deficiency.   Petitioner suggests that he is not

responsible for the interest due to respondent's delay in

notifying him of the deficiency.   Petitioner does not cite any

authority for his position.

     Section 6601 provides for the accrual of interest on any

underpayment of tax from the date the tax becomes due, until the

date the tax is paid.   Section 6404(e)(1) provides:

          (e) Assessments of Interest Attributable to Errors
     and Delays by Internal Revenue Service.--

               (1) In general.-- In the case of any
          assessment of interest on--

                    (A) any deficiency attributable in
               whole or in part to any error or delay
               by an officer or employee of the
               Internal Revenue Service (acting in his
               official capacity) in performing a
               ministerial act, or

                    (B) any payment of any tax
               described in section 6212(a) to the
               extent that any error or delay in such
               payment is attributable to such officer
               or employee being erroneous or dilatory
               in performing a ministerial act,

          the Secretary may abate the assessment of all or
          any part of such interest for any period. For
          purposes of the preceding sentence, an error or
          delay shall be taken into account only if no
          significant aspect of such error or delay can be
          attributed to the taxpayer involved, and after the
          Internal Revenue Service has contacted the
          taxpayer in writing with respect to such
          deficiency or payment. [Emphasis added.]
                                 - 4 -

     This Court's jurisdiction does not extend to statutory

interest imposed under section 6601.     Thomas v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 1994-291.   There is ample authority in support of the

position that interest abatement under section 6404(e)(1) is a

discretionary form of relief within the sole province of

respondent and beyond the scope of judicial review.     Bax v.

Commissioner, 13 F.3d 54, 58 (2d Cir. 1993), affg. an Order of

this Court; see also Asciutto v. Commissioner, 26 F.3d 108 (9th

Cir. 1994), affg. T.C. Memo 1992-564; Thomas v. Commissioner,

supra.   Accordingly, we are without jurisdiction to abate

statutory interest.    508 Clinton St. Corp. v. Commissioner, 89

T.C. 352, 353 (1987); Boyer v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-267.

     To reflect the foregoing,



                                          Decision will be entered

                                          for respondent.
