- 9 -
We have considered all of petitioner’s complaints regarding
respondent’s conduct in connection with the deficiency cases,
including the claim made in petitioner’s brief that the 1981
deficiency was erroneously overstated in the stipulated decision
entered in the case involving that year, and find that none
supports a ground for relief under section 6404(e). Respondent’s
conduct in connection with the deficiency cases provides no basis
to conclude that respondent’s failure to abate interest was an
abuse of discretion.
Petitioner paid the deficiencies on various dates between
September 19 and November 28, 1994. None of the interest has
been paid. As of the date that each of the deficiencies was
paid, interest ceased to run on the underlying tax. However,
because no interest was paid, and because interest that accrued
after December 31, 1982, is compounded daily, interest continued
to accrue (and continues to accrue) after the dates that the
deficiencies were paid. Interest accruing after the dates that
the deficiencies were paid is due to petitioner’s failure to pay
the outstanding interest obligations and not due to a ministerial
act on respondent’s part. See Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-398. Respondent’s failure to abate interest for any
period after the dates that the deficiencies were paid was not an
abuse of discretion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011