- 13 -
In granting respondent’s motion, we do not rely on
petitioner’s procedural failures. Even if we should accept
petitioner’s unsupported allegations as true and properly
supported by evidence, we would still grant respondent’s motion
for summary judgment. As a matter of law, none of the five
grounds for abatement that petitioner has alleged is a valid
ground for relief.
First, petitioner alleges that respondent improperly refused
to grant his request made on September 9, 1994, to delay the
audit of his returns until he completed his graduate work in May
1995. Even if wrongful, respondent’s refusal to delay the audit
would not constitute a legal basis for the abatement of interest.
Respondent’s decision to refuse to delay the audit is not a
ministerial act; it is a managerial act involving the exercise of
discretion for which interest abatement is not available to
petitioner in this case.
Second, petitioner alleges that “I told the IRS auditor in
September & October 1994 that the best address to use for me was
my mailing address on the Carnegie Mellon University Campus.
* * * He apparently didn’t register that address change.”
Petitioner alleges that he therefore did not know about the April
4, 1995, notice of deficiency. Petitioner argues, in essence,
that if respondent had mailed the notice of deficiency to his
“better” Carnegie Mellon address, he would have received it,
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011