Robert A. and M. Faye Strang - Page 6

                                        - 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