Michael Coleman v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL COLEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL
REVENUE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Nos. 12-72482
12-72483
Tax Ct. No. 2945-09L, 3164-09
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from a Decision of the
United States Tax Court
Submitted February 17, 2015**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
In these consolidated appeals, Michael Coleman appeals pro se from the
United States Tax Court’s decision upholding the Commissioner’s denial of his
request for an abatement of interest. We have jurisdiction under 26 U.S.C. §
7482(a)(1). We review de novo the Tax Court’s interpretation of the Tax Code and
FILED
FEB 27 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes these cases are suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

-- 1 of 2 --

its decision as to whether the Commissioner abused his discretion in denying a
request for abatement of interest. Adkinson v. Comm’r, 592 F.3d 1050, 1052 (9th
Cir. 2010); Fargo v. Comm’r, 447 F.3d 706, 709 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.
The Tax Court properly concluded, on stipulated evidence, that the
Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in denying Coleman’s request for an
abatement of interest under 26 U.S.C. § 6404 where Coleman did not identify a
ministerial act that the Commissioner failed to perform. 26 U.S.C.§ 6404(e)(1)(A)
(permitting abatement of interest in the case of “any deficiency attributable . . . 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”); Treas. Reg. § 301.6404-2(b)(2) (defining ministerial act as a “procedural and
mechanical act that does not involve the exercise of judgment or discretion”).
Accordingly, we agree that the Commissioner did not abuse his discretion in
declining to grant Coleman’s request for an abatement of interest.
AFFIRMED.
12-72482 2

-- 2 of 2 --