- 28 -
Commissioner’s concession in respect of a notice that failed to
include interest. Indeed, in Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-398, the Court held that the Commissioner’s failure to
include accrued but unassessed interest in a payout figure given
to the taxpayer constituted a ministerial act that justified the
abatement of interest.
Douponce v. Commissioner, supra, is distinguishable from the
present case. Thus, critical to the Court’s holding in Douponce
was the fact that the taxpayer had inquired regarding the “total
amount due” and after having been given a payoff figure, promptly
paid such amount. Some 5 months later, when the taxpayer was
notified of his liability for interest, the taxpayer promptly
paid that amount, too. In holding that the Commissioner should
have abated interest for this 5-month period, the Court stated
that “It is reasonable to assume the only reason for the delay
* * * was caused by respondent’s failure to tell petitioner the
correct amounts due when petitioner requested that information”.
Douponce v. Commissioner, supra.
In sharp contrast with the facts in Douponce v.
Commissioner, supra, respondent in the present case overstated
the amount of interest due for 1986. Thus, the assumption made
by the Court in Douponce regarding “the only reason for the
delay” would not seem to be warranted in the present case.
At trial, petitioner professed to rely on the August 1998
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