- 20 - We turn now to petitioners’ contentions, as best we understand them, in support of their argument that interest should be abated for the period from September 19, 1994, to February 12, 1997. Petitioners contend that application of the local standards for housing and utilities to a taxpayer’s offer in compromise is a ministerial act that does not require the exercise of discretion and that respondent committed a “ministerial error” by failing to apply the local standards to petitioners until they submitted their seventh offer. We disagree for several reasons. First, we are not convinced that the premise of petitioners’ contention is correct. Although application of the local standards for housing and utilities is, in the first instance, mechanical in nature, the revenue officer is nonetheless authorized to decide whether a taxpayer should be required to pay an amount equal to excessive or unallowable housing expenses or, in contrast, whether the taxpayer should be allowed an amount in excess of the local standard. In this regard, respondent instructs each revenue officer to consider three specific factors in making this determination.14 Second, the local standards for housing and utilities that are in issue in this case were not published in the Internal Revenue Manual until November 2, 1995. Petitioners’ first six 14 See supra note 7.Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011