Nina H. Pettyjohn - Page 22




                                       - 22 -                                         
          B.  The Taxable Year 1994                                                   
               On or about August 9, 1996, petitioner was notified of the             
          examination of her 1994 income tax return.  Notification of the             
          examination apparently prompted petitioner to make an advance               
          payment of $500, which was posted to petitioner’s account on                
          September 19, 1996.  Shortly thereafter, by an examination report           
          dated October 1, 1996, respondent proposed a deficiency in                  
          petitioner’s income tax of $3,966, to which petitioner agreed.              
          On October 28, 1996, respondent assessed the deficiency and                 
          interest thereon.                                                           
               In our view, the record does not reveal any ministerial                
          error or delay by respondent.  Accordingly, we hold that                    
          respondent did not abuse his discretion in refusing to abate                
          interest for the period from August 9, 1996, to April 3, 1997,              
          the date on which petitioner’s account was fully paid.                      
          C.  The Taxable Year 1995                                                   
               In or about October 1996, petitioner was notified in writing           
          of the examination of her 1995 income tax return through the                
          receipt of an examination report dated October 4, 1996.                     
          Thereafter, on December 23, 1996, respondent sent petitioner a              
          notice of deficiency, which was substantively identical to the              
          examination report.12  Petitioner did not timely file a petition            


               12  In contrast to the sending of the notice of deficiency             
          for 1993, there is nothing in the record to suggest that                    
          respondent erred in sending petitioner a notice of deficiency for           
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011