- 14 -
requirements because all of their offers were substantially less
than the value of their available assets.
We conclude that petitioners are liable for the addition to
tax under section 6651(a)(2) for failure to pay tax.
C. Whether Respondent’s Failure To Abate Interest Was an Abuse
of Discretion
The parties stipulated that respondent misplaced
petitioners’ offer in compromise from about April 15, 1996, to
April 16, 1997.5 The Commissioner may abate part or all of an
assessment of interest on any deficiency or payment of income,
gift, estate, and certain excise tax to the extent that any error
or delay in payment is attributable to erroneous or dilatory
performance of a ministerial act by an officer or employee of the
Commissioner if: (a) The erroneous or dilatory performance of
the ministerial act occurred after the Commissioner notified the
taxpayer in writing about the deficiency or payment, and (b) the
taxpayer did not contribute significantly to the error or delay.
See sec. 6404(e)(1). We apply an abuse of discretion standard in
reviewing the Commissioner’s failure to abate interest. Krugman
v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 239 (1999); Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999). Petitioners contend that
respondent’s failure to abate interest that accrued during the
5 The burden of proof does not affect our disposition of
this issue because no fact issue is in dispute relating to
petitioners’ claim.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011