- 6 -
that petitioners were not current in filing quarterly employment
tax returns. Respondent later acknowledged that petitioners were
not required to file these returns after being provided with
information by petitioners.
We do not conclude that respondent abused his discretion in
denying interest abatement. Approximately 3 weeks after
petitioners submitted the OIC, May 1 to May 23, 2002, the IRS
returned the OIC, believing that petitioners were required to
file quarterly employment tax returns and that therefore they
were not current in their filing obligations. In June 2002,
petitioners provided the IRS with information revealing that they
were not required to file and resubmitted the OIC. Respondent
then proceeded to consider the OIC and ultimately rejected the
OIC by letter dated April 21, 2003, approximately 10 months after
the offer was resubmitted. As indicated, the revenue officer
considering the OIC concluded that petitioners had net equity in
assets plus future ability to pay totaling $427,532. Petitioners
had offered $3,000 to pay the balance then due of $7,961. While
we are aware that the process of consideration of petitioners’
OIC did not proceed at a pace that petitioners might have liked,
we do not conclude that there was delay resulting from a
ministerial or managerial act. This is particularly the case
where petitioners do not dispute the conclusions set forth in the
rejection of the OIC.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011