                        T.C. Memo. 2009-247



                      UNITED STATES TAX COURT



                RUSSELL J. BUCARO, Petitioner v.
          COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent



     Docket No. 17659-07.               Filed November 2, 2009.



     Russell J. Bucaro, pro se.

     Steven W. LaBounty, for respondent.



             MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION


     MARVEL, Judge:   On February 14, 2007, respondent issued a

notice of final determination (determination) partially

disallowing petitioner’s claim for abatement of interest with

respect to petitioner’s unpaid Federal income tax liabilities for

1996 and 1997.   Petitioner timely filed a petition under section
                              - 2 -

6404(h)1 and Rule 280 contesting respondent’s determination.   The

only issue2 for decision is whether respondent’s determination

not to abate interest from April 1, 2000, through August 31,

2001, from January 2, 2002, through November 30, 2003, and from

June 2, 2004, through May 16, 2006, with respect to petitioner’s

1996 and 1997 Federal income tax liabilities was an abuse of

discretion.3


     1
      Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code as amended, and all Rule references are
to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
     2
      In his Forms 843, Claim for Refund and Request for
Abatement (collectively, abatement request), petitioner also
sought an abatement of penalties for 1996 and 1997. Respondent’s
determination did not address petitioner’s request to abate
penalties. In fact, it does not appear that respondent had
assessed any penalties or additions to tax with respect to
petitioner’s 1996 and 1997 returns before the notice of
determination was issued, which probably explains why the notice
of determination does not address that part of petitioner’s
abatement request. In any event, we lack jurisdiction to
determine whether respondent should have abated penalties or
additions to tax. Sec. 6404(g); Krugman v. Commissioner, 112
T.C. 230, 237 (1999); Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 21
n.4 (1999).
     3
      In his abatement request petitioner asserted that
respondent should abate interest from Apr. 1, 2000, through
Sept. 30, 2004, on his 1996 and 1997 deficiencies. After
respondent partially denied petitioner’s abatement request,
petitioner appealed to the Appeals Office. In his appeal he
again sought full relief from interest from Apr. 1, 2000, through
Sept. 30, 2004. However, he also claimed respondent delayed
consideration of his abatement request. In the determination
respondent denied abatement of interest from Apr. 1, 2000,
through May 16, 2006, except for periods from Sept. 1, 2001,
through Jan. 1, 2002, and from Dec. 1, 2003, through June 1,
2004. We construe petitioner’s petition as a request to review
respondent’s determination not to abate interest for the same
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 3 -

                         FINDINGS OF FACT

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

 The stipulation of facts and the supplemental stipulation of

facts are incorporated herein by this reference.   When he

petitioned this Court, petitioner resided in Missouri, and his

individual net worth did not exceed $2 million.

     During 1996 and 1997 petitioner and his wife, Ann L. Bucaro

(Mrs. Bucaro), were shareholders of Abrams-Condyne Corp.4

(Abrams-Condyne), an S corporation.    For 1996 and 1997 petitioner

and his wife owned a 50-percent interest, and the Abrams Family

Trust (trust), a grantor trust, owned the other 50-percent

interest.5   During 1996 and 1997 petitioner was also the sole

shareholder of Condyne Corp. (Condyne), an S corporation.

Condyne and Abrams-Condyne filed Forms 1120S, U.S. Income Tax

Return for an S Corporation, and petitioner and Mrs. Bucaro filed

joint Forms 1040, U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, for 1996 and

1997.



     3
      (...continued)
periods covered by the determination.
     4
      The record reflects several slightly different spellings of
the corporation’s name. The differences, however, are minor and
do not affect the outcome.
     5
      The taxpayers who owned the trust wrote off the investment
in Abrams-Condyne on their 1996 Federal income tax return. The
record does not disclose why this occurred or how the writeoff
affected the trust’s status as a shareholder of Abrams-Condyne in
1997.
                                - 4 -

Respondent’s Examination

     Sometime in 1999 respondent selected Condyne’s 1997 return

for examination.   Respondent notified Condyne in either late 1999

or early 2000 that its 1997 return had been selected for

examination.    Respondent selected Condyne’s 1997 return at least

in part because Condyne had claimed a $106,000 bad debt deduction

with respect to loans it allegedly made to Abrams-Condyne.

Respondent subsequently expanded his examination to include

Condyne’s 1996 and 1998 returns, Abrams-Condyne’s 1996 and 1997

returns, which were not filed until August 3, 2000, and

petitioner’s 1996, 1997, and 1998 returns (collectively the

examination).   Petitioner was the principal contact with

respondent regarding the examination.

     From the inception of the examination in 1999 to and

including August 24, 2001, Examining Officer Deborah Collins (EO

Collins) and petitioner worked diligently on the examination.   EO

Collins and petitioner corresponded and met concerning questions

EO Collins had about the returns under examination.   The

examination uncovered several issues on which EO Collins and

petitioner disagreed, including the bad debt deduction that

Condyne had claimed on its 1997 Form 1120S and various basis

issues involving the corporations.

     After respondent received Abrams-Condyne’s delinquent

returns on August 3, 2000, respondent assigned the examination of
                                - 5 -

the returns to EO Collins.    On August 17, 2000, respondent sent a

notice of the beginning of administrative proceeding (NBAP) to

Abrams-Condyne with respect to its 1996 year6 pursuant to the S

corporation audit provisions enacted as part of the Tax Equity

and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA), Pub. L. 97-248,

sec. 402(a), 96 Stat. 648.7   See sec. 6244 (repealed).

     On September 26, 2000, EO Collins summoned bank statements

for Abrams-Condyne.   She received the statements on October 17,

2000.

     On November 17, 2000, EO Collins issued a Form 5701, Notice

of Proposed Adjustment, proposing adjustments to Abrams-Condyne’s

1996 and 1997 returns.   On December 21, 2000, petitioner met with

EO Collins to discuss the proposed adjustments.   The following

day EO Collins mailed petitioner three Letters 950(DO) with

attached forms specifying the proposed examination changes for

petitioner, Condyne, and Abrams-Condyne for 1996 and 1997

(collectively, 30-day letters).




        6
      Sec. 6244, which made the TEFRA audit and litigation
procedures applicable to S corporations, was repealed for years
after Dec. 31, 1996. Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996,
Pub. L. 104-188, secs. 1307(c)(1), 1317(a), 110 Stat. 1781, 1787.
        7
      During 1996 one of Abrams-Condyne’s shareholders was a
trust. Under the TEFRA audit procedures then in effect, an S
corporation with a trust as a shareholder could not qualify as a
small S corporation that was not subject to the TEFRA audit
rules. See sec. 301.6241-1T(c)(2), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 3003 (Jan. 30, 1987).
                               - 6 -

     By letter dated January 24, 2001, addressed to EO Collins,

petitioner protested the adjustments in the 30-day letters and

requested an Appeals Office conference.8    From that date until

the beginning of March 2001 petitioner and EO Collins continued

to discuss the proposed adjustments and the proper tax treatment

of various items reported on Abrams-Condyne’s and Condyne’s

returns.   Their principal disagreement involved Condyne’s 1997

bad debt deduction and the proper tax treatment of various

distributions.   On March 5, 2001, petitioner proposed a

settlement, which EO Collins rejected.     On or about March 7,

2001, EO Collins closed the Abrams-Condyne case to her manager.

On April 24, 2001, the manager returned the case to EO Collins

for further work.   The manager returned the Abrams-Condyne case

to EO Collins at least in part because of questions regarding why

the trust was not under examination.   The manager asked EO

Collins to obtain information relative to the trust.     During May

and June 2001 EO Collins obtained information regarding the trust

and researched whether an assessment was time barred.

     On July 3, 2001, EO Collins met with petitioner to discuss

the examination and to secure assessment period extensions.

During the rest of July EO Collins continued to work on the

Abrams-Condyne case.   On August 9, 2001, she prepared to close



     8
      Petitioner apparently faxed a copy of the protest letter to
EO Collins on Jan. 23, 2001.
                               - 7 -

the case,9 and on August 24, 2001, case processing received the

1997 Abrams-Condyne case.

     The record does not contain any indication that EO Collins

and/or the Appeals Office actively worked on petitioner’s case or

the corporate cases from August 24, 2001, through and including

January 7, 2002.   Sometime during this period, however, on a date

that does not appear in the record, the Abrams-Condyne case was

returned to EO Collins.10   From January 8 through October 10,

2002, EO Collins continued to work on the examination of, and



     9
      The record contains conflicting information about
respondent’s adherence to the TEFRA audit procedures during the
examination of Abrams-Condyne’s returns. On the one hand, a
timeline prepared by Examining Officer Marilyn Young (EO Young)
in an effort to reconstruct what happened during the examination
was admitted into evidence, and it indicates that on Aug. 17,
2000, respondent sent an NBAP to Abrams-Condyne with respect to
its 1996 year. On the other hand, the timeline states that on
July 3, 2001, “RA started TEFRA proceedings on 1996 case through
PCS Coordinator on AC.” From July 26, 2001, through Jan. 7,
2002, and from Jan. 9 through Apr. 2, 2002, the timeline
identifies no meaningful activity with respect to Abrams-
Condyne’s 1996 year. On Apr. 3, 2002, EO Collins received a fax
from the TEFRA coordinator regarding Abrams-Condyne’s 1996 year.
On Apr. 10, 2002, EO Collins sent a letter to Abrams-Condyne
requesting that it designate a tax matters partner. On June 11,
2002, respondent issued a notice of final S corporation
administrative adjustment (FSAA) with respect to Abrams-Condyne’s
1996 return. Strangely, although Abrams-Condyne did not file a
petition in response to the FSAA and the FSAA defaulted,
respondent did not process the adjustments in the FSAA, and on
June 23, 2003, the TEFRA unit closed the 1996 Abrams-Condyne case
as a “no change”.
     10
      EO Collins’ case activity history with respect to Abrams-
Condyne that is in the record ends with her entry for Aug. 9,
2001. Her case activity histories with respect to petitioner and
Condyne are not in the record.
                               - 8 -

communicated with the TEFRA coordinator regarding the examination

of, Abrams-Condyne’s 1996 year.   On or about April 12, 2002, EO

Collins issued a revised 30-day letter to Abrams-Condyne for 1996

and 1997.   Petitioner did not agree with the adjustments in the

revised 30-day letter.   In or around June 2002 EO Collins

prepared the Abrams-Condyne case for transmittal presumably to

respondent’s case processing section and Appeals Office.

However, sometime before September 1, 2002, the case was selected

for quality review.   The review process identified

inconsistencies in the adjustments to Abrams-Condyne’s,

Condyne’s, and petitioner’s returns, and on September 1, 2002,

the cases were returned to EO Collins for additional work.   After

EO Collins resolved the inconsistencies, she transferred all of

the case files on October 10, 2002, in anticipation of Appeals

Office review.

Appeals Office’s Consideration of Examination

     On October 16, 2002, the Appeals Office received some or all

of the case files,11 and on or about November 18, 2002,

petitioner’s appeal was assigned to Appeals Officer Douglas Wilke

(AO Wilke).   According to AO Wilke’s case activity record,12 on


     11
      The record does not disclose whether the Appeals Office
received petitioner’s and Condyne’s files on Oct. 16, 2002.
     12
      As directed by the Court at trial, the record was
supplemented to include the Appeals Office’s case activity report
regarding petitioner’s appeal. The report contains entries by
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 9 -

November 26 and December 2, 2002, he reviewed the files for

petitioner’s appeal.   On December 12, 2002, he prepared and

mailed to petitioner consents to extend the period of limitations

on assessment.

     From January 1 through and including November 10, 2003, and

from November 19, 2003, through and including June 3, 2004, AO

Wilke made no case activity entries with respect to the appeal,

and there is no evidence in the record to show what, if anything,

AO Wilke did in connection with petitioner’s appeal during those

periods.   In fact, the Appeals Office case activity history does

not show that AO Wilke did anything with the appeal from

December 14, 2002, to June 10, 2004, when the appeal was

reassigned, other than process consents to extend the period for

assessment.13

     On June 23, 2003, respondent’s TEFRA unit closed the Abrams-

Condyne case without change.   The record does not disclose the

reasons for this action.




     12
      (...continued)
both AO Wilke and Appeals Officer Kevin McGrath (AO McGrath).
     13
      On Nov. 10, 2003, AO Wilke prepared and mailed to
petitioner additional consents to extend the period of
limitations on assessment. On Nov. 19, 2003, he received the
signed consents from petitioner. On Nov. 24, 2003, AO Wilke
mailed the executed consents to petitioner. On June 4, 2004, AO
Wilke again prepared and mailed consents to extend the period of
limitations on assessment.
                              - 10 -

     On June 10, 2004, petitioner’s appeal was transferred from

AO Wilke to AO McGrath.   During June and early July 2004 AO

McGrath reviewed petitioner’s appeal.    During July and August

2004 petitioner’s accountant and AO McGrath discussed a

settlement.   After exchanging settlement proposals petitioner and

AO McGrath reached a settlement agreement in approximately

September 2004.   Petitioner executed a Form 870-AD, Offer to

Waive Restrictions on Assessment and Collection of Tax Deficiency

and to Accept Overassessment, in which petitioner agreed to

deficiencies of $14,046 and $7,895 for 1996 and 1997,

respectively.   On October 25, 2004, respondent assessed the 1996

and 1997 deficiencies and interest.    On or about January 20,

2005, petitioner paid the full amount of the deficiencies but not

the interest.

Request for Abatement

     On or about January 8, 2005, petitioner submitted a Form

843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, for each of the

years 1996 and 1997, in which he requested an abatement or refund

of interest as a result of IRS errors or delay.    Petitioner

attached a statement to the Forms 843 explaining that he was

requesting abatement in full of all interest and penalties with

respect to 1996 and 1997 “for the period April 1, 2000, through

September 30, 2004” because of substantial errors and delays in

handling his examination and related appeal.
                               - 11 -

     On August 18, 2005, petitioner sent a letter to respondent

inquiring into the status of his abatement request.    Because

petitioner did not receive a reply to his August 18, 2005,

letter, on October 21, 2005, he telephoned the IRS Taxpayer

Advocate Service.    After speaking with a representative, he

mailed her copies of his abatement request.    From January 8,

2005, when petitioner submitted his abatement request to

respondent, until February 17, 2006, the record is silent as to

what, if any, action respondent took to address petitioner’s

abatement request.

     On February 17, 2006, petitioner’s abatement request was

assigned to Marilyn Young, Interest Abatement Coordinator, in

Indianapolis, Indiana.    Over the next 3 months Ms. Young reviewed

the history of the examination of the returns for petitioner,

Condyne, and Abrams-Condyne and the related appeal and

settlement.   After trying to reconstruct what transpired during

the examination and appeal Ms. Young prepared a timeline and

narrative that described her reconstruction of the examination,

appeal, and settlement history.14


     14
      According to the timeline, on Jan. 23, 2003, AO Wilke
mailed to petitioner a consent to extend the period of
limitations on assessment for Abrams-Condyne’s 1996 return and
discussed petitioner’s appeal with a territory manager and a
TEFRA coordinator. Her timeline and the narrative also reflect
that on Feb. 26, 2003, AO Wilke received the signed consent, and
2 days later he mailed petitioner an executed copy. Ms. Young’s
reconstruction of the events includes a statement that on June
                                                   (continued...)
                              - 12 -

     On May 16, 2006, respondent issued Letter 2290 to petitioner

abating interest from September 1, 2001, through January 1, 2002,

and from December 1, 2003, through June 1, 2004, and denying

abatement for the remainder of the period considered (April 1,

2000, through September 30, 2004).     In the attachment to Letter

2290 Ms. Young explained that she allowed partial abatement of

interest because she found there was no indication respondent’s

employees took any action on petitioner’s case during these

periods.

Appeals Office’s Consideration of Abatement Request

     On June 8, 2006, petitioner sent respondent a letter seeking

Appeals Office review of respondent’s partial denial of his

abatement request.   In his appeal he sought complete relief from

all interest accruing from April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2004, and asserted that respondent took an unreasonable amount of

time to consider his abatement request.    On June 27, 2006, the




     14
      (...continued)
23, 2003, the “TEFRA unit closed the 1996 * * * [Abrams-Condyne]
case as a ‘no change’”. Her reconstruction also states that on
July 24, 2003, AO Wilke wrote a memorandum to the file regarding
the 1997 Abrams-Condyne examination, and on Nov. 17, 2003, he
wrote a memorandum concerning the resolution of the 1996 Abrams-
Condyne TEFRA proceeding. The Appeals Office case history does
not contain entries by AO Wilke to support all of the timeline
entries described above. We decline to find as facts entries in
the timeline that are not supported by entries in the Appeals
Office case history.
                              - 13 -

Appeals Office mailed petitioner a letter acknowledging receipt

of his appeal.

     On February 14, 2007, respondent issued a notice of

determination disallowing petitioner’s request for an additional

abatement of interest with respect to 1996 and 1997.    The period

covered by the notice of determination was April 1, 2000, through

May 16, 2006, the date on which respondent issued Letter 2290.

In an attachment to the notice of determination Appeals Officer

Nelson (AO Nelson) stated that after considering litigation

hazards,15 he agreed with Ms. Young’s determination to abate

interest that accrued from September 1, 2001, through January 1,

2002, and from December 1, 2003, through June 1, 2004, for 1996

and 1997.   He also concluded that petitioner’s abatement request

in all other respects should be denied because petitioner’s

argument ignored the requirements imposed for interest abatement

by applicable regulations, and petitioner had not identified any

proper basis for abating interest.     The attachment to the notice

of determination did not contain any explanation of respondent’s


     15
      AO Nelson reasoned that the absence of activity from Sept.
1, 2001, through Jan. 1, 2002, was probably because of
respondent’s failure to perform a ministerial task. He agreed
that abatement of interest was warranted from Dec. 1, 2003,
through June 1, 2004, because there could have been a managerial
delay during that time. AO Nelson acknowledged that he could
only speculate as to what transpired during those periods because
the record was silent. Ultimately, he concluded that since
respondent could not account for his actions during these
periods, it would be difficult for respondent to defend a
decision not to abate interest.
                             - 14 -

determination not to abate interest for the period from the

submission of petitioner’s abatement request on January 8, 2005,

through May 16, 2006.

Subsequent Payments and Litigation

     In April and June 2007 petitioner made additional payments

that fully satisfied his 1996 and 1997 tax liabilities.

Petitioner also petitioned this Court to review respondent’s

determination, using Tax Court Form 2 (May 2003).   In his

petition, petitioner stated that he “disagree(s) with the

determination contained in the notice issued by the Internal

Revenue Service for the year(s) or period(s) 12/1996 and 12/1997,

as set forth in such notice dated February 14, 2007”.   In the

section of the petition form that directs the taxpayer to set

forth the relief requested and the reasons the taxpayer believes

he is entitled to such relief, petitioner stated the following:

     This request for abatement of interest results from an
     audit that was initiated on January 10, 2000 for tax
     years 1996 and 1997. I responded timely with requested
     information and had two meetings with the examiner by
     the middle of March 2000. From that time forward,
     through the end of September 2004, the IRS was
     responsible for a series of delays and errors in
     resolving this matter. Ultimately, after more than
     four years, the IRS in essence accepted the proposal I
     had originally made in March of 2000. Accordingly, in
     accordance with Section 6404(e) of the IRS Code, I am
     requesting that all interest and penalties be abated
     for the period April 1, 2000 through September 30, 2004
     for the following reasons: 1) Excessive managerial
     delays in reporting the audit results, 2) Substantial
     managerial errors in reporting the results of audit
     meetings between the examiner and me, and 3) Excessive
     managerial delays in addressing my appeal.
                             - 15 -

     We conducted a trial in which both parties participated.

Although petitioner, who was not represented by counsel,

testified, his testimony was not particularly informative about

what transpired during the period covered by the notice of

determination--April 1, 2000, through May 16, 2006.   However, the

parties stipulated, among other things, to documents that covered

the entire period addressed in the notice of determination--April

1, 2000, through May 16, 2006.

                             OPINION

A. Interest Abatement in General

     For tax years beginning before July 31, 1996, section

6404(e) provided in pertinent part as follows:

          SEC. 6404(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
                              - 16 -

           attributed to the taxpayer involved, and after the
           Internal Revenue Service has contacted the
           taxpayer in writing with respect to such
           deficiency or payment.

In 1996 Congress amended section 6404(e) to read in pertinent

part as follows:

          SEC. 6404(e). Abatement of Interest Attributable
     to Unreasonable 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 unreasonable error or delay
                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 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.

Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR 2), Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301(a),

110 Stat. 1457 (1996).   Current section 6404(e) applies to

deficiencies or payments for tax years beginning after July 30,

1996.   TBOR 2 sec. 301(c), 110 Stat. 1457.   Former section
                                - 17 -

6404(e)(1) applies to petitioner’s abatement request for 1996.

Current section 6404(e)(1) applies to petitioner’s abatement

request for 1997.

     Under both former section 6404(e) and current section

6404(e), a “ministerial act” is a procedural or mechanical act

that does not involve the exercise of judgment or discretion by

the Commissioner.   Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. &

Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987); sec. 301.6404-

2(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs.    Under current section 6404(e), a

“managerial act” means an administrative act that involves a

temporary or permanent loss of records or the exercise of

judgment or discretion relating to personnel management during

the processing of a taxpayer’s case.     Sec. 301.6404-2(b)(1),

Proced. & Admin. Regs.   In contrast, a decision concerning the

proper application of Federal tax law, or other Federal or State

laws, to the facts and circumstances surrounding a taxpayer’s tax

liability is not a ministerial or managerial act.     Sec. 301.6404-

2(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.

     When Congress first enacted section 6404(e) as part of the

Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, sec. 1563(a), 100 Stat.

2762, it did not intend the provision to be used routinely to

avoid payment of interest.   Rather, Congress intended abatement

of interest only where failure to do so “would be widely

perceived as grossly unfair.”    H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985),
                               - 18 -

1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986),

1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208.   Section 6404(e) affords a taxpayer

relief only if no significant aspect of the error or delay can be

attributed to the taxpayer and only after the Commissioner has

contacted the taxpayer in writing about the deficiency or payment

in question.   See H. Rept. 99-426, supra at 844, 1986-3 C.B.

(Vol. 2) at 844 (“This provision does not therefore permit the

abatement of interest for the period of time between the date the

taxpayer files a return and the date the IRS commences an audit,

regardless of the length of that time period.”).

     The Commissioner’s authority to abate an assessment of

interest involves the exercise of discretion, and we must give

due deference to the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion.

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

Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082 (1988).   To prevail, a taxpayer

must prove that the Commissioner abused his discretion by

exercising it arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis

in fact or law.   Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 23; Mailman v.

Commissioner, supra at 1084; see also sec. 6404(h)(1); Rule

142(a).   The mere passage of time does not establish error or

delay in performing a ministerial or managerial act.   See

Cosgriff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-241 (citing Lee v.

Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 150 (1999)).   However, “The

Commissioner is in the best position to know what actions were
                                 - 19 -

taken by IRS officers and employees during the period for which

* * * [an] abatement request was made and during any subsequent

inquiry based upon that request.”      Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C.

Memo. 2000-123.      Where the administrative record is silent

regarding the actions taken on a taxpayer’s matter and the

Commissioner does not come forth with evidence to show that the

employees assigned to the matter or involved in its review were

actively working on it, there may be no apparent basis to support

the Commissioner’s determination not to abate interest, and the

unsupported determination may constitute an abuse of discretion.

Id.

B.    Jurisdiction

       We have exclusive jurisdiction under section 6404(h)(1) to

review the Commissioner’s denial of a taxpayer’s interest

abatement request and to order an abatement where an abuse of

discretion has occurred.      Hinck v. United States, 550 U.S. 501,

503 (2007).    Petitioner established that he met the requirements

of section 6404(h)(1); therefore, we have jurisdiction to review

respondent’s determination.

       Before filing his petition, petitioner paid all of his

outstanding 1996 and 1997 tax liabilities, including interest.

As a result, petitioner’s petition in effect asserts a request
                              - 20 -

for a refund of interest that he overpaid.16   In cases involving

a review of the Commissioner’s determination to deny interest

abatement in whole or in part, our jurisdiction to review the

interest abatement determination includes the authority to order

a refund in appropriate circumstances.   See Hinck v. United

States, supra at 509 (“No one doubts” the Tax Court may review

abatement of interest claims where the interest has been paid);

Greene-Thapedi v. Commissioner, 126 T.C. 1, 12-13 (2006).

C.   Scope of Our Review

       The parties stipulated relevant portions of the

administrative record, including petitioner’s interest abatement

request, a letter complaining about respondent’s delay in acting

on the interest abatement request, and the notice of

determination.   The stipulated record raises an initial issue

regarding the nature and extent of petitioner’s abatement claim

and respondent’s determination, and the scope of our review under

section 6404(h).

      In his initial interest abatement request petitioner

requested that interest be abated for 1996 and 1997 as a result

of IRS errors or delays.   In an attachment to the request,

petitioner stated that he was requesting abatement of all


      16
      According to respondent’s records, on Oct. 25, 2004,
respondent assessed $9,860 and $4,391 in interest for 1996 and
1997, respectively. The records also establish that by June 11,
2007, petitioner had fully paid the 1996 and 1997 liabilities,
including assessed interest.
                                - 21 -

interest for the period April 1, 2000, through September 30,

2004.     After the IRS issued Letter 2290 to petitioner on May 16,

2006, petitioner appealed the partial denial of his abatement

request to the Appeals Office.     In his letter to the Appeals

Office petitioner asserted that respondent had taken an

unreasonable amount of time to consider his abatement request.

The Appeals Office treated the letter as a supplement to

petitioner’s abatement request, and in a notice of determination

dated February 14, 2007, the Appeals Office denied an interest

abatement for the period from April 1, 2000, through May 16,

2006, the date on which respondent issued Letter 2290.

      Petitioner petitioned this Court to review respondent’s

determination.    In his petition he stated that he “[disagrees]

with the determination contained in the notice issued by the

Internal Revenue Service for the year(s) or period(s) 12/1996 and

12/1997, as set forth in such notice dated February 14, 2007.”

We construe petitioner’s petition to request a review of the

entire period covered by the notice of determination issued by

the Appeals Office, and we shall review respondent’s

determination accordingly.

D.   Petitioner’s Arguments

        Petitioner asserts that for the periods for which respondent

abated interest, respondent’s employees were not achieving any

results; consequently, respondent’s determination to abate
                                - 22 -

interest was an admission that respondent was untimely in

conducting his examination and Appeals Office review.   Petitioner

argues that, by granting his abatement request in part,

respondent has established untimeliness as a new criteria for

relief under section 6404(e).

     Petitioner also asserts that because respondent’s entire

examination, and not just the periods for which abatement has

already been allowed, was not productive,17 abatement is

appropriate for the entire period covered by the abatement

request.   Petitioner argues that, because the entire examination

was unproductive, respondent’s failure to abate interest for the

entire period is “grossly unfair” and would run afoul of

Congress’ intent that grossly unfair interest be abated.

     Petitioner’s general arguments regarding the unproductivity

and unfairness of the examination and administrative appeal

processes are not persuasive for several reasons.   First,

petitioner misconstrues respondent’s determination.   AO Nelson

abated interest that accrued from September 1, 2001, through

January 1, 2002, and from December 1, 2003, through June 1, 2004,

because the administrative record did not indicate what actions,

if any, respondent’s employees took during these periods.


     17
      Although it is not entirely clear what petitioner means
when he uses the terms “productive” and “unproductive” with
respect to the examination and administrative appeal, we construe
his use of the terms to refer to the quantity and quality of the
final adjustments resulting therefrom.
                               - 23 -

Respondent acknowledged that he could not explain what occurred

during these periods and that a decision not to abate interest

would be unsupportable.   The partial abatement is not an

admission that the examination and Appeals process was

unproductive.   Second, the determination regarding abatement of

interest does not depend upon or require an examination of the

results of an examination.    See, e.g., Howell v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2007-204; Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-

138, affd. 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004); Scott v. Commissioner,

T.C. Memo. 2000-369.   Third, even if lack of productivity were a

proper basis to abate interest under section 6404(e), petitioner

has not proven that the examination was unproductive.    The record

shows that petitioner and respondent discussed multiple issues

throughout the examination.   Some issues were resolved in

petitioner’s favor, and others were not.   Petitioner ultimately

agreed to income tax deficiencies for both 1996 and 1997.

     In reviewing whether respondent’s determination was an abuse

of discretion, we must decide with respect to petitioner’s 1996

return whether respondent erred or delayed in performing a

ministerial act, and with respect to petitioner’s 1997 return,

whether respondent unreasonably erred or delayed in performing a

ministerial or managerial act.18   We cannot properly analyze and


     18
      Respondent does not assert, nor does the record establish,
that petitioner contributed to an error or delay or that
                                                   (continued...)
                               - 24 -

decide these issues without taking into account the examinations

that respondent conducted of Condyne and Abrams-Condyne because

petitioner was required to report his distributive share of the S

corporations’ profit or loss during 1996 and 1997, and

petitioner’s examination and appeal could not be resolved until

the examinations of the two S corporations were resolved.    We

shall segment our analysis into the relevant periods.

     1.    April 1, 2000, Through August 31, 2001

     The record reveals that from April 1, 2000, through August

31, 2001, EO Collins steadily and continuously worked on the

examination of petitioner’s, Condyne’s, and Abrams-Condyne’s

returns.    EO Collins began her examination of Condyne’s returns

sometime before April 1, 2000.    She began examining petitioner’s

returns in March 2000, and in August 2000 the examination

expanded to include Abrams-Condyne’s 1996 and 1997 returns, which

respondent did not receive until August 3, 2000.    Throughout this

period, EO Collins worked diligently on the examination and

communicated regularly with petitioner about it.

     The record as summarized reveals that both parties were

actively working on some part of the examination during this

period.    Other than general arguments about lack of productivity,

petitioner has not identified any dilatory or unreasonable


     18
      (...continued)
petitioner seeks an abatement of interest that accrued before
respondent contacted him in writing.
                               - 25 -

failure to perform a managerial or ministerial act, and we have

found none.    The record for this period does not reveal any

significant gaps of time during which respondent’s employees took

no action whatsoever, nor is the record silent with respect to

the examination activity that occurred.    Accordingly, we hold

that respondent did not abuse his discretion in refusing to abate

interest from April 1, 2000, through August 31, 2001, with

respect to petitioner’s 1996 and 1997 Federal income tax

liabilities.

     2.   January 2 Through December 31, 2002

     Respondent abated interest from September 1, 2001, through

and including January 1, 2002, because there was no record of

activity on the examination during that period of time.    Although

that part of respondent’s determination is not before us, it is

part of the continuum that we review to understand how the

examination and administrative appeal progressed.

     The record does not show any activity by respondent’s

employees on the examination during the period from January 2

through and including January 7, 2002.    Respondent has not

introduced any evidence to explain what occurred during the

period from January 2 through and including January 7, 2002, and

we cannot ascertain any reason for respondent’s decision not to

abate interest for this period as well.    Absent some explanation

supported by evidence in the record explaining how and why
                               - 26 -

respondent exercised his discretion the way that he did, we must

conclude that respondent’s determination not to abate interest

from January 2 through and including January 7, 2002, was an

abuse of discretion.   See Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.

2000-123.

     On a date that does not appear in the record but was

sometime on or about January 8, 2002, the Abrams-Condyne case was

returned to EO Collins.    The record, while sparse, indicates that

EO Collins continued to work on the examination from January 8,

2002, through June 2002 when EO Collins prepared the Abrams-

Condyne case and possibly the other cases as well for transmittal

to the Appeals Office.    Sometime before September 1, 2002, the

case was selected for quality review.    The review identified

inconsistencies, and the case was returned to EO Collins again.

On October 10, 2002, EO Collins transferred the examination files

for transmittal to the Appeals Office.

     We cannot identify any failure to perform a ministerial or

managerial act during this period that would support additional

interest abatement.    Although the progress of the examination

appears to have been impaired by quality issues that required the

case files to be returned to EO Collins on two separate

occasions, we do not read section 6404 to permit abatement simply

because the reviewing agent may have made a mistake in analyzing

or applying relevant law.    The record adequately demonstrates
                              - 27 -

that EO Collins continued to work on the examination with

petitioner until she transferred the examination files to the

Appeals Office in October 2002.   Once the Appeals Office received

petitioner’s appeal, it promptly processed the appeal and

assigned the appeal to AO Wilke, who did a small amount of work

reviewing the case files and processing consents during November

and December 2002.

     Petitioner has not identified any delay or error by

respondent in performing a ministerial or managerial act from

January 8 through December 31, 2002, and on the basis of the

record, we have found none.   Accordingly, we conclude that

respondent’s determination not to abate interest for this period

was not an abuse of discretion.

     3.   January 1 Through November 30, 2003

     From January 1 through and including November 10, 2003, and

from November 19, 2003, through and including June 3, 2004, AO

Wilke made no case activity entries with respect to petitioner’s

appeal.   Although the parties stipulated that AO Wilke processed

consents on November 10, November 19, and November 24, 2003,

those are the only actions taken by AO Wilke with respect to the

appeal during this period until June 4, 2004, when he again

prepared and mailed consents to petitioner.     At best, the record

is silent as to whether AO Wilke performed even the most basic of

ministerial acts to move the appeal forward, such as scheduling
                              - 28 -

an Appeals conference.   At worst, the record reflects that AO

Wilke did nothing more than process consents during this

period.19

     Respondent abated interest from December 1, 2003, through

and including June 1, 2004, because he could not identify any

action taken by the Appeals Office on petitioner’s appeal during

that period.   However, respondent did not abate interest for

January 1 through November 30, 2003, presumably because AO Wilke

processed some consent paperwork during that period.   The

explanation offered by respondent for his refusal to abate

interest is general and uninformative and fails to discuss why AO

Wilke never performed the ministerial act of scheduling an

Appeals conference.

     An agency must cogently articulate the rationale for

exercising its discretion in a particular manner.   South Dakota

v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 423 F.3d 790, 799-800 (8th Cir. 2005).

Respondent is in the best position to explain what actions AO


     19
      At trial we asked respondent’s counsel to supplement the
record by providing the Appeals Office case activity record with
respect to petitioner’s appeal. The case activity record was
subsequently stipulated as an exhibit. Our review of the case
activity record reveals that it is not consistent in all respects
with the timeline prepared by EO Young. We place greater
reliance on the case activity record because it is a
contemporaneous business record and not a reconstruction. See
United States v. Naiden, 424 F.3d 718, 722-723 (8th Cir. 2005);
Estate of Freedman v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-61; Contl.
Grain Co. v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1988-577 n.5
(contemporaneous documents and statements are generally more
reliable than those prepared or made later).
                              - 29 -

Wilke took or did not take from January 1 to November 30, 2003.

Respondent either could not or did not offer evidence to explain

AO Wilke’s failure to schedule an Appeals conference or to take

meaningful action to move the appeal forward, and we may infer

from this lack of information in the record that respondent’s

decision not to abate interest was an abuse of discretion.    See

Dadian v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-121; Jacobs v.

Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123.     Because the record fails to

explain why AO Wilke failed to perform the ministerial act of

scheduling an Appeals conference in petitioner’s appeal from

January 1 through November 30, 2003, we hold that respondent

abused his discretion by refusing to abate interest for that

period.

     4.   June 2, 2004, Through January 7, 2005

     Respondent does not explain why he abated interest only from

December 1, 2003, to and including June 1, 2004.    AO Wilke’s

inaction on petitioner’s appeal continued until June 10, 2004,

when the appeal was reassigned to AO McGrath.

     Once the appeal was reassigned to AO McGrath the parties

made rapid progress in resolving all outstanding issues.    AO

McGrath met and discussed the unagreed examination issues with

petitioner and his accountant, and the parties reached a basis of
                                  - 30 -

settlement in September 2004.20      After petitioner and respondent

finalized the settlement and executed a Form 870-AD, respondent

promptly assessed the 1996 and 1997 deficiencies on October 25,

2004.       After respondent assessed the 1996 and 1997 deficiencies

and mailed appropriate notices of balance due, respondent had no

obligation to perform any actions until petitioner submitted his

abatement request on January 8, 2005.

       Except for the period from June 2 to June 9, 2004,

petitioner has not identified any delay or error in performing a

ministerial or managerial act after the appeal was reassigned to

AO McGrath on June 10, 2004, and the record does not disclose

any.    We hold that respondent abused his discretion in refusing

to abate interest from June 2 to June 9, 2004, and we sustain

respondent’s determination denying petitioner’s request for

abatement with respect to the rest of the period.

       5.     January 8, 2005, Through May 16, 2006

       On January 8, 2005, petitioner filed his abatement request

with respondent.       From January 8, 2005, until February 17, 2006,

the record is silent as to what, if any, action respondent took

to address petitioner’s abatement request.       It does not appear

that respondent took any action with respect to the abatement

request before assigning the request to EO Young.


       20
      AO McGrath informed petitioner that petitioner could file
a request to abate interest but that AO McGrath could not abate
interest as part of the pending Appeals Office review.
                              - 31 -

     From February 17 when petitioner’s abatement request was

assigned to EO Young to May 16, 2006, EO Young consistently and

diligently worked on petitioner’s abatement request.    On May 16,

2006, respondent sent petitioner his preliminary determination to

abate interest from September 1, 2001, through January 1, 2002,

and from December 1, 2003, through June 1, 2004, only and to deny

it for all other periods.

     The record documents EO Young’s diligent attention to and

work on petitioner’s abatement request but does not contain any

credible evidence to explain the complete institutional silence

from January 8, 2005, when petitioner filed his abatement

request, to February 17, 2006, when respondent finally assigned

the request to EO Young.

     Absent evidence that explains why respondent refused to

abate interest from January 8, 2005, through February 16, 2006,

we can conclude only that respondent abused his discretion in

refusing to abate interest for that period.   Respondent was in a

position to explain what actions he took, if any, but respondent

did not do so.   See Jacobs v. Commissioner, supra.    Accordingly,

we conclude that respondent’s decision not to abate interest from

January 8, 2005, through February 16, 2006, was an abuse of

discretion.   We sustain respondent’s determination as to the

remainder of the period.
                              - 32 -

E.   Conclusion

      The record shows extended periods during which certain

ministerial actions should have taken place but did not.     The

record also shows extended periods when respondent’s employees

did not take any action whatsoever.     For some of those periods

respondent has not offered any explanation for the inactivity or

the failure to perform the ministerial acts.     We conclude,

therefore, that respondent abused his discretion in refusing to

abate interest for the following periods:     January 2 through and

including January 7, 2002; January 1 through and including

November 30, 2003; June 2 through and including June 9, 2004; and

January 8, 2005, through and including February 16, 2006.       We

sustain respondent’s determination in all other respects.

      We have considered the remaining arguments made by the

parties and to the extent not discussed above, conclude those

arguments are irrelevant, moot, or without merit.

      To reflect the foregoing,


                                      Decision will be entered under

                                  Rule 155.
