Ex-Ch J L. Paige (“Iron Fist”) Marvel provides another Cliff Notes quick-study for nonattorney aspirants to Tax Court admission at pp. 3-4 of Anthony Angelo Masciantonio & Barbara Elaine Masciantonio, Docket No. 16236-22, filed 5/16/25.

Petitioners seek abatement of interest after they stiped out deficiencies and chops.

“Under section 6404(e)(1)(A), the Commissioner may abate part or all of an assessment of interest on any deficiency that is attributable to an unreasonable error or delay by the Commissioner’s employees or officers in performing a ministerial or managerial act. To qualify for an abatement of interest, the taxpayer must (1) identify an error or delay by respondent in performing a ministerial or managerial act; (2) establish a correlation between the error or delay by respondent and a specific period for which interest should be abated; and (3) show that the taxpayer would have paid his or her tax liability earlier but for such error or delay. When enacting section 6404(e), Congress intended for the Commissioner to abate interest where failure to abate interest would be widely perceived as grossly unfair and did not intend that abatement be used routinely to avoid payment of interest.

“A managerial act means 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. Treas. Reg. § 301.6404-2(b)(1). A ministerial act means 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. Treas. Reg. § 301.6404-2(b)(2). A decision concerning the proper application of federal tax law is neither a managerial nor a ministerial act. Treas. Reg. § 301.6404-2(b)(1) and (2). Section 6404(e)(1) also does not provide for abatement of interest if a ‘significant aspect of the error or delay is attributable to the taxpayer involved.’” Treas. Reg. § 301.6404-2(a)(2).” Order, at p. 3. (Citations omitted).

Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction over abatement claims. Petitioners need to duck the Section 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) $2 million net worth bar; that’s each spouse for MFJs.

While standard of review is abuse of discretion, abatement cases aren’t record-rulers; there’s de novo for evidence.

Here, all petitioners had was materiality and relevancy objections to the admin record. They had no evidence outside the admin record.

“Rule 93(a), however, requires the entire administrative record (or so much of it as either party may deem necessary for a complete disposition of the issue or issues in dispute) to be filed with the Court no later than 45 days after the notice setting the case for trial is served ‘if judicial review of the Commissioner’s determination ordinarily would be based solely or partly on the administrative record.’ While we may consider materials outside the administrative record in an interest abatement case, review of the Commissioner’s decision not to abate interest for abuse of discretion is ordinarily based partly on the administrative record, and filing the Administrative Record was thus required regardless of petitioners’ views as to its relevance or materiality.” Order, at p. 4. (Footnote omitted).

The stip doesn’t help, as all it says is interest will accrue and be assessed as provided by law.

“Section 6601(a) provides that if ‘any amount of tax imposed by this title . . . is not paid on or before the last date prescribed for payment, interest on such amount at the underpayment rate established under section 6621 shall be paid for the period from such last date to the date paid.’ See §§ 6072(a), 6151(a) (generally prescribing the last payment date for calendar-year taxpayers as the 15th day of April following the close of the calendar year); see also § 6601(b)(1). This is true even though the amount of tax imposed is the subject of preassessment litigation in this Court, at least in the absence of a cash deposit. Cf. § 6603(a) and (b) (providing a method for a taxpayer to halt the accrual of interest on unassessed tax by making a cash deposit).” Order, at p. 5.

Note that the dubious legal advice provided by IRS counsel (described in Order at pp. 4-5) is neither administrative nor ministerial.  Statute and regs, guys, nothing else.