- 22 -
until February 12, 1997.15 To the extent that petitioners seek
to imply that they would have, and could have, paid their
outstanding liability any earlier than August 27, 1997, had they
known that their efforts to compromise such liability would
ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, we reject such implication
because it is unsupported by the record. See Hawksley v.
Commissioner, supra. Indeed, when asked by the Court at trial
what petitioners would have done differently had they known about
the local standards at an earlier date, petitioner stated that he
was not aware of any option other than to have sold his home.
The candidness of this statement is borne out by the fact that
petitioners did not make a single payment of tax after filing
their return until August 27, 1997, and by the fact that
petitioners’ account was in uncollectible status for much of the
time that is relevant to this case.
In conclusion, the record does not reveal any error or delay
in payment of petitioners’ 1993 tax liability that is
attributable to respondent’s being erroneous or dilatory in
performing a ministerial act. Accordingly, we hold that
respondent did not abuse his discretion in refusing to abate
interest.
15 Implicit in petitioners’ contention is the notion that
respondent is under a duty to inform a taxpayer of the local
standards and that the fulfillment of such duty is a ministerial
act. We need not, however, decide either matter.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011