- 13 -
testimony. He has not even identified the employees who
allegedly gave him the advice. But any advice given to him by
IRS employees, whether accurate or inaccurate, would be a
product of the legal or administrative judgment of the person
giving the advice. Therefore, the oral advice petitioner
testified he received and relied upon does not constitute a
ministerial act. Moreover, petitioner should have known the
"advice" to be erroneous in April 1993. That was when he
signed the decision document agreeing that he had net tax
payments for 1983 of $5,717 on a tax deficiency to be assessed
in the amount of $5,717, and a deficiency in income tax due for
1980 of $6,330.
Petitioner's present request for a "refund" of interest
from 1993 forward conflicts with the evidence of his actual
knowledge or reason to know that he was entitled to neither a
$5,717 refund for 1983 nor a $5,717 tax "credit" from 1983 to
1980.
In sum, respondent’s refusal to abate interest was not an
abuse of discretion. We have considered all other arguments
advanced by petitioner and, to the extent not discussed above,
have found those arguments to be irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011