- 6 -
6404(e) "where failure to abate interest would be widely
perceived as grossly unfair" but not that it "be used routinely
to avoid payment of interest". H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985),
1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986),
1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208.
Prior to contacting respondent to obtain "payout" amounts on
May 9, 1996, there was no erroneous or dilatory performance of a
ministerial act by an officer or employee of the Commissioner
that contributed to a delay or error in the payment of the
interest which had accrued on petitioner's outstanding tax
liabilities. Since there was no erroneous or dilatory
performance of a ministerial act, the Commissioner lacked
authority to abate interest. Under these circumstances, it can
hardly be an abuse of his discretion to refuse to abate interest
that accrued prior to May 9, 1996.
For the period from May 9 to May 30, 1996, when petitioner
made his payments of $2,296 and $2,592, any interest which
accrued was solely due to petitioner's failure to pay his
outstanding tax liabilities. Again in these circumstances there
was no erroneous or dilatory performance of a ministerial act and
the Commissioner lacked authority to abate interest.
For the period from May 30 to November 4, 1996 (when
respondent finally notified petitioner of additional interest by
issuing a Notice of Intent to Levy), the facts dictate a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011