- 23 -
with this Court. Rather, petitioner paid the deficiency in tax,
but not the interest thereon. Accordingly, on May 26, 1997,
respondent assessed the deficiency, together with interest
thereon, and sent petitioner a notice of balance due regarding
the unpaid interest.
In our view, the record does not reveal any ministerial
error or delay by respondent. Any delay in the assessment of the
deficiency is attributable to petitioner, who could have
consented in writing to the assessment at an earlier stage in the
process. See sec. 6213(d). Further, interest accruing after the
date on which the deficiency was paid is due to petitioner’s
failure to pay the outstanding interest and not due to a
ministerial act on respondent’s part. See Donovan v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220; see also 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”). Accordingly, we hold that respondent did not abuse
his discretion in refusing to abate interest for the period from
October 4, 1996, to April 15, 2000, the date on which
petitioner’s account was fully paid.
D. Section 6404(e)(2)
Finally, although petitioner does not cite or expressly rely
on section 6404(e)(2), we think it appropriate to comment on that
12(...continued)
1995.
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