- 15 -
1980 tax; and here, unlike the delay in Wish, it was respondent’s
ministerial error that caused the delay.
We conclude that petitioners’ delay in paying their 1980 tax
from May 1987 to March 1998 was attributable to respondent’s loss
of their amended 1981-82 returns.
E. Whether Petitioners Significantly Contributed to the Delay
Respondent contends that petitioners significantly
contributed to the delay. We disagree.
Petitioners had no role in losing their 1981-82 amended
returns for 11 years and deserve credit for bringing to
respondent’s attention the fact that respondent had lost those
returns. Petitioners reasonably believed that they had paid
their 1980 tax and did not significantly contribute to the delay.
Petitioner credibly testified that petitioners would have paid
the 1980 tax liability earlier had they known that they still
owed tax for that year. As discussed above, the only reason for
the delay in petitioners’ payment of their tax for 1980 was
respondent’s loss of petitioners’ amended returns for 11 years.
Thus, respondent’s refusal to abate interest that accrued from
May 1987 to March 1998 on petitioners’ tax liability for 1980 was
an abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011