- 9 -
28, 1998.7 Because petitioners’ arguments are founded on
different bases, we shall respond to each separately.
With respect to the first period, January 31, 1995, through
April 4, 1996, petitioners argue that respondent delayed the
resolution of their case for approximately 15 months while the
revenue agent assigned to their case attended training.
Petitioners argue that they should not be penalized with interest
for a period during which respondent acknowledges his employee
was not permitted or authorized to work on their case.
Petitioners’ argument fails because respondent did not have the
discretion to abate interest for the subject period.
The version of section 6404(e)8 in effect for the period at
issue provides the Commissioner with discretion to abate all or
any part of an assessment of interest only if such interest is a
result of an error or delay by an officer or employee in the
performance of a ministerial act. Sec. 6404(e). The
Commissioner does not have the requisite discretion to abate
interest with respect to an error or delay resulting from
managerial acts. At trial, Tax Auditor Erickson testified that
7At trial, the parties stipulated the partial settlement of
this second period. Specifically, the parties settled their
dispute regarding the period spanning Jan. 21 through Aug. 6,
1998. Accordingly, this opinion relates solely to the periods
articulated in the petition to which the parties have not
stipulated a partial settlement.
8See supra note 5.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011