                        T.C. Memo. 2011-72



                     UNITED STATES TAX COURT



            RALPH AND DIANNE SANDBERG, Petitioners v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 29806-08.               Filed March 28, 2011.



     Jon Noel Dowat, for petitioners.

     Julie A. Jebe and H. Barton Thomas, Jr., for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     MORRISON, Judge:   Petitioners (the Sandbergs) filed Forms

843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, for tax years

1993, 1995, 1996, and 2002 seeking abatement of interest.       On

June 9, 2008, respondent (the IRS) issued a notice of

determination to Ralph Sandberg disallowing the claims; the IRS
                                   - 2 -

sent an identical notice of determination to Dianne Sandberg.1

The Sandbergs petitioned for review under section 6404(h).2       At

issue is whether the determination not to abate interest was an

abuse of discretion.       Sec. 6404(h)(1); Woodral v. Commissioner,

112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).       As explained below, we find that it was

not.       The Sandbergs have not shown that the IRS had authority to

abate interest for tax years 1993, 1995, and 1996 because they

failed to identify an error or delay by the IRS in performing a

ministerial act.       And they have not shown that the IRS had

authority to abate interest for tax year 2002 because they failed

to identify an error or delay by the IRS in performing a

ministerial or managerial act.

                             FINDINGS OF FACT

       Some facts have been stipulated by the parties and are so

found.3      The stipulation of facts and its attached exhibits are

incorporated by reference.




       1
      Although the IRS sent separate notices to Dianne and Ralph
Sandberg, the underlying liabilities are joint liabilities.
       2
      All section references are to the Internal Revenue Code, as
effective for the requests for abatement at issue, and all Rule
references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure,
unless otherwise indicated.
       3
      But see infra note 8 and accompanying text (declining to
adopt paragraph 19 of the stipulation of facts because it
conflicts with the stipulated documents and appears to be an
error).
                                 - 3 -

     The Sandbergs had unpaid tax liabilities for a number of tax

years, including the years for which they request abatement of

interest.   The IRS filed notices of federal tax lien for these

liabilities; some were filed in Ralph’s name, some in Dianne’s

name, and some in both names.    The IRS filed some of the notices

in Aitkin County, Minnesota, and some in Anoka County, Minnesota.

     In Anoka County, the IRS recorded the following notices of

federal tax lien.4   On December 28, 1999, Revenue Officer Clyde

Boyer filed a notice for tax years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in

Ralph’s name (as “Ralph Sandberg”).      For 1993, 1995, and 1996,

the notice stated unpaid balances totaling $418,328.77.      For

1994, the notice stated an unpaid balance of $175,741.      On May

16, 2007, Boyer recorded an amendment reducing the total unpaid

balance for 1993, 1995, and 1996 to $129,351.66; the amendment

reduced the unpaid balance for 1994 to $63,346.60.5     On December

6, 2005, Revenue Officer Sue Tucker filed a notice for tax years

1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in Dianne’s name (as “Dianne E

Sandberg”).   For 1993, 1995, and 1996, the notice stated unpaid

balances totaling $149,774.18.    For 1994, the notice stated an

unpaid balance of $67,243.39.    On May 16, 2007, Tucker recorded


     4
      Besides the notices discussed, the IRS also filed notices
of federal tax lien for unpaid liabilities for tax years 1997 and
1998.
     5
      It is unclear why the IRS amended this lien (and the other
liens discussed below).
                                - 4 -

an amendment reducing the total unpaid balance for 1993, 1995,

and 1996 to $133,822.02; the amendment reduced the unpaid balance

for 1994 to $64,346.60.    Finally, on December 6, 2005, Revenue

Officer Elizabeth Santos-Kraushaa filed a notice in both names

(as “Ralph J & Diane E Sandberg”) for tax year 2002.    The notice

stated an unpaid balance for 2002 of $6,933.49.     The table below

summarizes the notices filed in Anoka County for 1993, 1995,

1996, and 2002.

    Tax Years       Name on Notice of     Initial        Amended
   (in issue)        Federal Tax Lien      Amount         Amount
1993, 1995, &
  1996              Ralph Sandberg      $418,328.77     $129,351.66
1993, 1995, &
  1996              Dianne E Sandberg    149,774.18      133,822.02
2002                Ralph J & Diane E
                      Sandberg             6,933.49        n/a

       In Aitkin County, the IRS recorded the following notices of

federal tax lien.    On March 7, 2001, Revenue Officer Clyde Boyer

filed a notice for tax years 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in

Ralph’s name (as “Ralph J Sandberg”).    For 1993, 1995, and 1996,

the notice stated unpaid balances totaling $417,367.77.6    For

1994, the notice stated an unpaid balance of $175,741.     On June

25, 2007, Boyer recorded an amendment reducing the total unpaid

balance for 1993, 1995, and 1996 to $129,351.66; the amendment


       6
      The parties have not explained why the notices filed in
Aitkin County and Anoka County state slightly different unpaid
balances.
                                 - 5 -

reduced the unpaid balance for 1994 to $63,346.60.      On December

12, 2005, Revenue Officer Sue Tucker filed a notice for tax years

1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 in Dianne’s name (as “Dianne E

Sandberg”).   For 1993, 1995, and 1996, the notice stated unpaid

balances totaling $149,774.18.    For 1994, the notice stated an

unpaid balance of $67,243.39.    On May 14, 2007, Tucker recorded

an amendment reducing the total unpaid balance for 1993, 1995,

and 1996 to $129,351.66; the amendment reduced the unpaid balance

for 1994 to $63,346.60.   Finally, on December 12, 2005, Revenue

Officer Elizabeth Santos-Kraushaa filed a notice in both names

(as “Ralph J & Diane E Sandberg”) for tax year 2002.     The notice

stated an unpaid balance for 2002 of $6,933.49.      The table below

summarizes notices filed in Aitkin County for 1993, 1995, 1996,

and 2002.

    Tax Years        Name on Notice of     Initial        Amended
   (in issue)         Federal Tax Lien      Amount         Amount
1993, 1995, &
  1996             Ralph J Sandberg       $417,367.77    $129,351.66
1993, 1995, &
  1996             Dianne E Sandberg       149,774.18     129,351.66
2002               Ralph J & Diane E
                     Sandberg                6,933.49       n/a

       The Sandbergs encountered difficulties in borrowing money to

pay their tax liabilities.   They arranged to refinance some of

their real property.   A closing with the lender was scheduled for

April 2, 2004, but the closing fell through.    Other lenders
                               - 6 -

turned them down.   The Sandbergs received a letter from one

stating that the Sandbergs did not qualify under the lender’s

credit guidelines “Due to their current tax liens and low credit

scores”.   The Sandbergs eventually received financing on or

around June 25, 2007, and they paid the IRS $312,449.44,

satisfying their liabilities for tax years 1993, 1995, 1996, and

2002.7   The IRS released the tax liens on July 11, 2007.8

     On January 7, 2008, the IRS received Forms 843 for tax years

1993, 1995, 1996, and 2002.   Both Ralph and Dianne Sandberg

signed the Forms 843.   In the area for “Explanation and

additional claims”, each form contained language similar to the

following (which appeared on the form requesting abatement for

tax year 1993):   “See attached letter and report to TIGTA of the

effect of the IRS erroneously and unlawfully filing more than

$1,703,000.00 of federal tax liens when the taxpayers only owed

$61,000.00.”   In their brief, the Sandbergs assert that they

attached documents, including a letter they supposedly wrote to



     7
      The $312,449.44 payment included liabilities for years
other than 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2002, which are the 4 years for
which the Sandbergs requested interest abatement.
     8
      Paragraph 19 of the stipulation of facts says that the
liens “were released on June 11, 2007, shortly after the amounts
due and owing were paid in full by petitioners.” (Emphasis
added.) We have found, however, that the liens were released on
July 11, 2007. The date appearing on the lien documents is July
11, 2007. And the date on which the stipulation says the liens
were released, June 11, 2007, is before the Sandbergs satisfied
their tax obligations on or around June 25, 2007.
                                - 7 -

the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA), to

these forms.    The IRS disputes that the attachments were included

with the forms and objects to their admission.     As we explain

below, we exclude the purported attachments from evidence because

the Sandbergs failed to authenticate the documents.     See infra

part I.A.

      The IRS issued two notices of determination, one to Ralph

Sandberg and one to Dianne Sandberg.      Each notice disallowed the

Sandbergs’ claims.    The Sandbergs, residents of Minnesota,

challenged these determinations by filing a petition with the Tax

Court.    They claim that they were unable to pay their tax

liabilities because they could not secure financing, an inability

they attribute to purported errors or delays by the IRS regarding

the notices of federal tax lien.    They argue that because of

those purported errors or delays, they are entitled to abatement

of interest.

                                OPINION

I.   Evidentiary Issues

     A.     Exhibits 2-J and 12-P

     The parties stipulated that the documents marked for

identification as Exhibit 2-J are “copies of petitioners’ Forms

843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, with respect to

taxable years 1993, 1995, 1996, and 2002.”     Exhibit 2-J is four

pages long and consists of copies of the Forms 843 and no other
                                 - 8 -

documents.    The stipulation does not state whether other

documents were attached to the Forms 843.

     At the commencement of trial, the Sandbergs objected to

Exhibit 2-J.    They claim that it was incomplete because it did

not include copies of several letters that they claim were

attached to the Forms 843.     The IRS denies that the letters were

attached to the Forms 843.     The Sandbergs offered Exhibit 12-P,

which is made up of copies of the Forms 843 and copies of the

letters that the Sandbergs claim they attached to the Forms 843.

     The Sandbergs’ assertion that the letters were attached to

the Forms 843 is not inconsistent with the stipulation, which

does not address the issue.     And their objection that Exhibit 2-J

is incomplete, raised at the commencement of the trial, was

timely.    See Rule 91(d).   But, as we explain below, the

Sandbergs’ objection, which we construe to be an objection under

rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, fails because they did

not offer any evidence to show that the letters were attached to

the Forms 843.

     Under rule 106 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, when a

party introduces part of a writing, the adverse party may require

the introduction of any other part of the writing which should,

in fairness, be considered with it.      But the adverse party must

authenticate the part it seeks to introduce.     Fed. R. Evid. 901

and 902.    Authenticity is established by evidence sufficient to
                                  - 9 -

support a finding that the document is authentic.     Fed. R. Evid.

901(a).     A document can be authenticated through the testimony of

a witness who knows that the document is what it is claimed to

be.    Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(1).   The Sandbergs claim that the

letters were attached to the Forms 843.     Thus, they were required

to present evidence that the letters were attached to the Forms

843.    For example, they could have adduced the testimony of a

witness who knew that the letters were attached to the Forms 843.

Dianne Sandberg cosigned (with her husband) all of the Forms 843

and some of the letters.    Myster signed the rest of the letters.

Even though the Sandbergs called Myster and Dianne Sandberg as

witnesses, neither testified that the letters were actually

attached to the Forms 843.    Because the Sandbergs have failed to

establish that the letters were attached, we admit into evidence

Exhibit 2-J, the Forms 843 without the letters.     We exclude from

evidence Exhibit 12-P, the Forms 843 with the letters.

       B.   IRS Hearsay Objections

       The IRS raised hearsay objections to two portions of

Myster’s testimony.    The IRS first objects to Myster’s recounting

of what the Sandbergs and employees of a company named Tax

Resolution told him about the Sandbergs’ tax difficulties.       The

Sandbergs do not offer this testimony as proof of the matter

asserted by the declarant--that the Sandbergs had tax

difficulties--but as background to how Myster came to represent
                                - 10 -

them.     Thus the testimony is not hearsay, and the objection is

overruled.9    See Fed. R. Evid. 801(c).

     The IRS also objects to Myster’s testimony about statements

a TIGTA agent supposedly made to him.10     The objection is

sustained because the Sandbergs offer the evidence to prove the

matters asserted by the declarant--that the declarant was a TIGTA

agent and that the IRS made errors--and no exception applies.

See Fed. R. Evid. 802.

     C.     Motion To Strike Parts of Petitioners’ Opening Brief

     The IRS objected to our consideration of documents the

Sandbergs attached to their opening brief and moved that we

strike the documents and the parts of the brief referring to the

documents.     The documents are:   (i) copies of several newspaper

articles; (ii) a copy of a Form 911, Application for Taxpayer

Assistance Order (ATAO); (iii) copies of letters Myster

supposedly sent to the IRS about subordinating the liens; (iv)

copies of several Forms 12277, Application for Withdrawal of

Filed Form 668(Y), Notice of Federal Tax Lien; (v) copies of the

documents contained in Exhibit 12-P (the purported letter to

TIGTA and the purported letters to the IRS regarding the tax




     9
        The IRS did not raise a relevance objection.
     10
      Specifically, Myster testified that a TIGTA agent agreed
to talk to the IRS about amending the liens in May of 2007.
                               - 11 -

liens);11 and (vi) what appear to be copies of several letters

from the Taxpayer Advocate Service regarding the Sandbergs’ case.

      Statements in a party’s brief and documents attached to a

party’s brief are not evidence.   Rule 143(c).    We will not

consider the documents attached to the brief that are not in

evidence.   See Godwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-289, affd.

132 Fed. Appx. 785 (11th Cir. 2005).    The motion to strike the

documents not in evidence and parts of the Sandbergs’ opening

brief referring to the documents will be granted.

II.   Abatement of Interest

      Section 6404(e)(1) authorizes the IRS to abate the

assessment of interest in some situations.      We have jurisdiction

to determine if the failure of the IRS to abate interest was an

abuse of discretion.12   See sec. 6404(h)(1).    The burden of proof

is on the taxpayer.   Rule 142(a).   To prevail, the taxpayer must

show that the IRS abused its discretion.    The IRS abused its


      11
      As discussed above, we exclude Ex. 12-P from evidence
because the Sandbergs failed to authenticate the documents.      See
supra part I.A.
      12
      The Sandbergs argue that we should exercise “plenary
jurisdiction” and implement a de novo standard of review.
Petrs.’ Br. at 7. Our jurisdiction is “strictly limited by
statute” and we “may not enlarge upon that statutory
jurisdiction.” Breman v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 61, 66 (1976);
see also sec. 7442. Here, sec. 6404(h)(1) is our only source of
jurisdiction to abate interest. See 508 Clinton St. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 352, 354-357 (1987) (holding, before
Congress enacted sec. 6404(h), we lacked jurisdiction). Sec.
6404(h)(1) limits our jurisdiction to determining if the IRS
abused its discretion.
                               - 12 -

discretion if it exercised that discretion arbitrarily,

capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.    See Woodral

v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. at 23.

     Congress amended section 6404(e)(1) for tax years beginning

after July 30, 1996.    Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168,

sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996).    Thus preamendment section

6404(e)(1) applies to the Sandbergs’ claims for tax years 1993,

1995, and 1996, and postamendment section 6404(e)(1) applies to

their claims for tax year 2002.

     A.     Tax Years 1993, 1995, and 1996

     For tax years 1993, 1995, and 1996, section 6404(e)(1)

provided:

     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 an
            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.
                               - 13 -

The Sandbergs did not frame their argument in the statute’s

terms.13   Their brief neither cites section 6404 nor specifically

identifies any act as a ministerial act.   As we explain below,

the Sandbergs--who have the burden of proof--have not shown that

the IRS abused its discretion because they have not shown an

error or delay in performing a ministerial act.

     Section 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52

Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987), defines “ministerial act”

generally as follows:

     a procedural or mechanical act that does not involve
     the exercise of judgment or discretion, and that occurs
     during the processing of a taxpayer’s case after all
     prerequisites to the act, such as conferences and
     review by supervisors, have taken place. A decision
     concerning the proper application of federal tax law
     (or other federal or state law) is not a ministerial
     act.

Thus a ministerial act is an act (i) that is procedural or

mechanical, (ii) that does not involve exercising judgment or

discretion, (iii) that is not a decision about how to apply

federal or state law, and (iv) that occurs (a) during the

processing of a taxpayer’s case and (b) after all prerequisites




     13
      For example, they state that they “argue for a change in
existing law such that when the [IRS], through its employees,
demonstrates ‘gross indifference’ towards any taxpayer then the
* * * [IRS] may not profit, especially in the assessment of
penalties and interest, from that ‘gross indifference’.” Petrs.’
Br. at 23. As discussed above, our review is limited to whether
the IRS abused its discretion in determining not to abate
interest. See supra note 12 and accompanying text.
                               - 14 -

to the act have taken place.    The Sandbergs have not identified

an error or delay in performing a ministerial act.

     The decision to file a notice of federal tax lien is not a

ministerial act because it involves exercising judgment and

discretion.   See, e.g., Internal Revenue Manual pt. 5.12.2.4.1

(May 20, 2005) (stating criteria the IRS uses to decide whether

to file a notice of federal tax lien).

     Although the Sandbergs claim the notices have incorrect

unpaid balances, they have not shown that the amounts were in

error.14   They have also not shown that if such an error existed,

it was not an error in applying federal or state law.

     The Sandbergs claim that the IRS committed errors by

“duplicating” some of the notices of federal tax lien.15    The IRS

on the other hand claims that notices were filed in Aitkin and

Anoka Counties because the Sandbergs owned property in both

places.    The Sandbergs have neither refuted this claim nor

otherwise offered a legal or factual basis to conclude the

filings were in error.




     14
      In their brief, the Sandbergs assert that the IRS based
the initial lien filings on amounts shown as tax on returns the
IRS prepared on their behalf. Petrs.’ Br. at 2. The Sandbergs’
brief asserts that the amounts were erroneous, but they have not
introduced evidence showing that the amounts were erroneous.
     15
      For example, for tax years 1993, 1995, and 1996, the IRS
filed notices in both Aitkin and Anoka Counties in Ralph’s name
and in Dianne’s name.
                                - 15 -

     Finally, the Sandbergs claim that the IRS committed errors

by failing to subordinate the liens and failing to withdraw the

notices of federal tax lien.    The IRS can issue a certificate of

subordination, which subordinates the tax lien on specific

property.    Sec. 6325(d).   But doing so is not a ministerial act:

it involves judgment and discretion.     See sec. 301.6325-1(d)(1),

Proced. & Admin. Regs. (“A District Director may, in his

discretion, issue a certificate of subordination of a

lien * * * .”).    The IRS can also withdraw a notice in certain

circumstances, but deciding to do so involves judgment and

discretion.    See sec. 6323(j)(1); sec. 301.6323(j)-1(b), Proced.

& Admin. Regs. (stating circumstances under which the IRS is

authorized to withdraw a notice).

     Section 6404(e)(1), as in effect for interest accruing with

respect to payments for tax years beginning before July 31, 1996,

authorizes the IRS to abate interest on a payment of tax to the

extent that an error or delay in such payment is attributable to

an officer or employee of the IRS’ being erroneous or dilatory in

performing a ministerial act.    The Sandbergs have not shown that

the IRS committed such an error or delay.

     B.     Tax Year 2002

     For tax year 2002, section 6404(e)(1) provided:

     In the case of any assessment of interest on--

                 (A) any deficiency attributable in whole
            or in part to any unreasonable error or delay
                               - 16 -

          by an officer or employee of the Internal
          Revenue Service (acting in his official
          capacity) in performing a ministerial or
          managerial act, or

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

Thus Congress made two changes to the text of section 6404(e)(1).

First, it inserted “unreasonable” before error.    And, second, it

replaced “in performing a ministerial act” with “in performing a

ministerial or managerial act”.

     At issue is whether the Sandbergs have shown an unreasonable

error or delay by the IRS in performing a ministerial or

managerial act.    As we explain below, they have not.

     The definition of a ministerial act did not change under

amended section 6404(e).    Compare sec. 301.6404-2(b)(2), Proced.

& Admin. Regs. (giving postamendment definition), with sec.

301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs., supra (giving

preamendment definition).    The Sandbergs allege no additional

errors for 2002.    Thus, as with tax years 1993, 1995, and 1996,

the Sandbergs have not shown an unreasonable error or delay in
                                - 17 -

performing a ministerial act.    See supra part II.A.   The

remaining issue is whether they have shown an unreasonable error

or delay in performing a managerial act.

     Section 301.6404-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., defines

“managerial act” as follows:

     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 relating to management of personnel. A
     decision concerning the proper application of federal
     tax law (or other federal or state law) is not a
     managerial act. Further, a general administrative
     decision, such as the IRS’s decision on how to organize
     the processing of tax returns or its delay in
     implementing an improved computer system, is not a
     managerial act for which interest can be abated under
     paragraph (a) of this section.

Thus a managerial act is an act (i) that is an administrative

act, (ii) that occurs during the processing of a taxpayer’s case,

and (iii) that involves either (a) losing records (temporarily or

permanently) or (b) exercising judgment or discretion relating to

managing personnel.

     The Sandbergs have not shown an unreasonable error or delay

in performing a managerial act.    Neither filing notices of

federal tax lien nor deciding whether to subordinate or withdraw

notices involves losing records or exercising judgment about

managing personnel.   The Sandbergs complain about the number of

revenue officers that handled their case but allege no specific

error in exercising judgment or discretion in managing personnel.
                               - 18 -

       Section 6404(e)(1), as in effect for interest accruing with

respect to payments for tax years beginning after July 30, 1996,

authorizes the IRS to abate interest on a payment of tax to the

extent that an error or delay in such payment is attributable to

an officer or employee of the IRS’ being erroneous or dilatory in

performing a managerial or ministerial act.    The Sandbergs have

not shown that the IRS committed such an error.

III. The Sandbergs’ Request for Sanctions Under Section 6673

       The Sandbergs request that the Court impose sanctions under

section 6673.    Section 6673(a)(2) provides that if an attorney

“[multiplies] the proceedings * * * unreasonably and

vexatiously”, the Court may impose excess costs, expenses, and

attorney’s fees.    The Sandbergs argue that we should impose

sanctions because the IRS counsel refused to stipulate that the

Sandbergs’ purported letter to TIGTA was attached to the Forms

843.    The parties are not required to stipulate legitimately

disputed facts.    Cf. Rule 91(a)(1) (“Included in matters required

to be stipulated are * * * all documents and papers or contents

or aspects thereof * * * which fairly should not be in

dispute.”).    Failing to do so does not justify imposing sanctions

under section 6673.    Cf. Dixon v. Commissioner, 132 T.C. 55

(2009) (awarding costs).    The Sandbergs’ request for sanctions

will be denied.
                              - 19 -

IV.   Summary

      Because the Sandbergs--who have the burden of proof--have

failed to show that section 6404(e)(1) authorized the IRS to

abate the assessment of interest, they have not shown that the

IRS abused its discretion by declining to do so.

      We have considered all arguments made by the parties.   We

conclude that those not mentioned are moot, irrelevant, or

without merit.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                         Decision will be entered

                                    for respondent.
