- 9 -
Manual (CCH), pt. 5.19.2., at 18,303 (Apr. 1, 2007). Given their
past problems with filing income tax returns, petitioners should
not have relied on the IRS to notify them that their 1996 amended
return and their 1997 return had not been received. If the IRS
had not sent petitioners any notification that their 1997 return
was delinquent before 2002, this would not be an unreasonable
error or delay under section 6404(e) because that section does
not permit abatement of interest regardless of how long the IRS
takes to first contact the taxpayer. Downing v. Commissioner,
118 T.C. 22, 30-31 (2002); Cannon v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo.
2002-205; Hanks v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-319. Therefore,
we find it was petitioners’ error that ultimately caused the
delay in petitioners’ payment of their 1997 income tax
liabilities.
We agree with petitioners that they generally have a
reasonable expectation that items they send in the mail will be
received. However, because petitioners were aware that several
of the returns they mailed to the IRS were not received,
petitioners should have taken steps to ensure that the IRS
received their subsequent returns. Furthermore, petitioners have
not offered any evidence showing that the IRS’s failure to
receive petitioners’ amended 1996 return or 1997 return before
2002 was due to any error committed by the IRS. Because
petitioners bear the burden of proof, the absence of any evidence
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008