- 10 -
the notice was sent to the last known address, he/she
should initial the statutory notice and no further action
need be taken to try to deliver the notice. [Id.]
Because further action with regard to the unclaimed
statutory notice was left to the Appeals officer’s discretion and
judgment, his inaction in this regard did not constitute error or
delay in performing a ministerial act for purposes of applying
section 6404(e).
Petitioners further suggest that after their taxes were
assessed by default on November 2, 1994, they were led to believe
that the notice of deficiency would be forthcoming or reissued,
at which time they could contest the deficiency in the Tax Court,
or that respondent intended to take other action in response to
their protest. Again, however, the record does not credibly
suggest any basis for concluding that petitioners’ delay in
paying the assessed taxes after receiving the notice of tax due
on November 2, 1994, was attributable to ministerial errors or
delays by respondent’s officers or employees.
Accordingly, we conclude that respondent’s failure to abate
petitioners’ interest under section 6404 was not an abuse of
discretion.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Last modified: May 25, 2011