- 13 - petitioners are referring to the period from April 2, 1991, through January 28, 1993. The IRS auditor completed his work with respect to Madison Leasing on April 2, 1991, but the proposed FPAA for Madison Leasing was not submitted for approval until January 28, 1993. Initially, we note that we cannot find an abuse of discretion in respondent’s failure to abate interest for any period before January 1, 1992, because petitioners did not request that respondent exercise his discretion and abate interest accruing before that date. As for the remainder of this period, it is clear from the letters which petitioners received from CIGNA that during this time the IRS was working on resolving cases involving Madison Leasing and the related partnerships. The letters, which petitioners were receiving at least as late as October 29, 1991, indicate that current progress was being made toward settling docketed cases and beginning work on settlements for nondocketed cases. In addition, the May 7, 1992, letter from Coopers & Lybrand to CIGNA indicates progress on the settlements was ongoing. Thus, even for this period the evidence in the record shows continuing progress. Finally, petitioners point to three specific causes of delay, though without correlating the causes with any specific timeframe for abatement. First, petitioners argue that delays were caused by the IRS’s refusal to provide the settlement offer when petitioners initially requested it. As noted above, aPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011