- 9 -9
Petitioners also contend that they would have agreed to a
settlement in the Encoder partnership case in 1987 and 1988 if
they had been offered one on similar terms to those involving
other limited partnerships in which they were direct or indirect
partners. Petitioners contend that treating them differently
from other taxpayers in their situation was a ministerial error
which requires respondent to abate assessment of accrued interest
from January 1, 1988, to the present. We disagree based on the
testimony of respondent’s lead project attorney for the EMS
litigation.
b. October 1, 1995 to Date
Petitioners contend that respondent's employees gave them
incorrect information and did not respond to them, causing
significant delays in resolving this matter. Petitioner
testified that, around October 1995, respondent's District
Counsel told them that interest would be tolled until the appeal
was decided. Petitioner testified that respondent's Appeals
officer told petitioners' daughter on March 12, 1996, that
interest had not accrued since October. Respondent offered no
evidence to counter petitioner's testimony. We conclude that the
statements by respondent's employees caused petitioners to delay
the payment of interest starting October 1, 1995, and refusal to
abate interest accruing thereafter was an abuse of discretion.
See Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011