Barry R. Downing and Mary A. Downing - Page 15




                                       - 15 -                                         
          period respondent misplaced petitioners’ offer in compromise was            
          an abuse of discretion.  We disagree.                                       
               The conference committee report for the Tax Reform Act of              
          1986 states in pertinent part as follows:  “If a taxpayer files a           
          return but does not pay the taxes due, this provision would not             
          permit abatement of this interest regardless of how long the IRS            
          took to contact the taxpayer and request payment.”  H. Conf.                
          Rept. 99-841 (Vol. II), at II-811 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 4) 1,           
          811.  Thus, if the taxpayer files a return but does not pay the             
          tax owed, section 6404(e) does not apply to interest that accrues           
          on the unpaid tax before the Commissioner contacts the taxpayer             
          in writing with respect to the tax.  Petitioners filed their 1995           
          income tax return but paid nothing and proposed to pay only                 
          $5,000 of the $32,561 due.  They seek an abatement of the                   
          interest that accrued on the unpaid tax before the Commissioner             
          first contacted them in writing with regard to it.  Section                 
          6404(e) does not permit such an abatement in this case.  Thus, we           
          hold that respondent’s failure to abate interest from April 15,             
          1996 (the date respondent misplaced petitioners’ offer in                   
          compromise), to April 16, 1997 (the date respondent returned                
          petitioners’ $5,000 offer in compromise payment to them), was not           
          an abuse of discretion.                                                     
               Petitioners contend that respondent delayed in providing               
          information about housing, utilities, and transportation expenses           
          to be used in computing the offer in compromise.  Petitioners               




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011