- 21 -
this Court. It was not until the following summer that
respondent’s Appeals Office in Atlanta sent petitioner a proposed
stipulated decision reflecting a deficiency based solely on the
disallowance of the deduction for gifts to family members.
By a certified letter dated October 27, 1998, respondent
exercised his discretion to abate interest for the period from
August 22, 1996, to July 7, 1997, because of the “ministerial
delay in associating your reply to the original 30-day letter
with the case file.” However, any delay after July 7, 1997, was
attributable to petitioner’s unjustified refusal to sign the
proposed stipulated decision until mid-October, which delayed
entry of decision by the Court until mid-November. See sec.
6404(e)(1) (“an error or delay shall be taken into account only
if no significant aspect of such error or delay can be attributed
to the taxpayer involved”). Notably, the Court’s decision
included a stipulation by the parties that interest would be
assessed “as provided by law on the deficiency in tax due from
petitioner.”
In our view, the record does not reveal any ministerial
error or delay by respondent, other than as conceded by
respondent. Accordingly, we hold that respondent did not abuse
his discretion in refusing to abate interest for the period from
July 19 to August 21, 1996, and for the period from July 8, 1997,
to October 13, 1999, the date on which petitioner’s account was
fully paid.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011