- 27 -
second contention is without merit.
C. Petitioner’s Third Contention
Finally, petitioner contends that respondent failed to apply
all of petitioner’s overpayment for 1985 against petitioner’s
liability for 1986, thereby overstating interest for 1986 and
depriving petitioner of the opportunity of immediately paying
such interest in full.
Respondent acknowledges that the notice sent to petitioner
on August 24, 1998, erroneously overstated the amount of interest
due for 1986. Respondent also acknowledges that “Respondent has,
in certain cases, abated interest during the time period between
an improper notice and a subsequent corrected notice, consistent
with Example (11) of Treas. Reg. � 301.6404-2(c).”18 See also
Krugman v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. at 240, regarding the
18 Sec. 301.6402-2(c), Example 11, Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
provides as follows:
A taxpayer contacts an IRS employee and requests
information with respect to the amount due to satisfy
the taxpayer’s income tax liability for a particular
taxable year. Because the employee fails to access the
most recent data, the employee gives the taxpayer an
incorrect amount due. As a result, the taxpayer pays
less than the amount required to satisfy the tax
liability. Accessing the most recent data is a
ministerial act. The Commissioner may (in the
Commissioner’s discretion) abate interest attributable
to any unreasonable error or delay arising from giving
the taxpayer an incorrect amount due to satisfy the
taxpayer’s income tax liability. [Emphasis added.]
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011