- 12 -
year, petitioner interpreted these statements to mean that his
1980 deficiency had been settled. Given the scarcity of
information provided to the IRS employees by petitioner and the
vagueness of petitioner's questions, we find that the IRS
employees answered petitioner's questions correctly. Assuming
arguendo that these answers qualify as ministerial acts, the
evidence failed to show that respondent's answers were erroneous
or dilatory.
D. Conclusion
We conclude that respondent did not abuse his discretion in
denying petitioner's claim for abatement of interest. To the
extent not herein discussed, we have considered petitioner's
other arguments, and we find them to be irrelevant or without
merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Last modified: May 25, 2011