- 10 -
that their 1985 and 1988 amended returns were referred for
examination on November 19, 1990, but Examiner Kruse delayed the
examination until January 3, 1992, when he first contacted
petitioners. Petitioners also argue that the period involved in
transferring petitioners’ files from Examiner Kruse’s office to
Appeals (September 23, 1992, to December 3, 1992) was excessive.
Additionally, petitioners claim that between January 1993 and
April 29, 1993, respondent was dilatory in forwarding their files
from Appeals to Agent Bose. Further, petitioners argue that from
May 1993 to October 1994, Agent Bose reaudited the amended
returns instead of simply issuing the RAR. Because petitioners
intended to apply the anticipated refund as payment for any
liabilities outstanding as to the 1981 tax year, petitioners
claim that the alleged errors or delays in the refund claim for
1985 relate to the 1981 tax year. Accordingly, petitioners
contend that they are entitled to an abatement of interest under
section 6404(e) as to the 1981 tax year.
Respondent counters that no errors or delays in performing
ministerial acts occurred during the processing of the refund
claim for 1985. Further, respondent argues that even if any such
errors or delays were committed, petitioners cannot be allowed an
abatement of interest for the 1981 tax year under section 6404(e)
with regard to such errors or delays. In other words, respondent
claims that the errors or delays were not associated with the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011