- 6 - (Vol. 3) 1, 208. Yet, Congress intended that abatement would be used sparingly, and it did not intend that abatement “be used routinely to avoid payment of interest.” Id. Petitioners contend that respondent unduly delayed the examination process because the examination took more than 6 months. Petitioners failed to establish any incidence of error or delay in performing ministerial acts that gave rise to any assessment of interest. Arguably, respondent delayed petitioners’ case when Officer Allen set their case aside for 6 months to work on other cases. However, the failure of an IRS officer to work on a case due to other priorities is not a ministerial act. See Leffert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001- 23. We conclude that respondent’s failure to abate interest was not an abuse of discretion. To reflect the foregoing, Decision will be entered for respondent.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6
Last modified: May 25, 2011