- 9 -
to abate interest was not an abuse of discretion.
1. Whether Respondent’s Refusal To Abate Interest That
Accrued as a Result of Respondent’s Reallocation of the
$150,000 Estimated Tax Payment Was a Ministerial Error
Petitioner points out that he timely paid tax for 1989,
1991, and 1992, and that respondent assessed interest only
because respondent reallocated most of the $150,000 estimated tax
payment to his former wife. Petitioner contends that the
reallocation was a ministerial error. We disagree.
Petitioner’s wife asked respondent to reallocate the
$150,000 payment between petitioner and herself. Respondent told
petitioner that the reallocation was based on tax liabilities
reported on their separate 1986 returns. Respondent’s
reallocation of the estimated tax payment required the exercise
of judgment in evaluating petitioner’s wife’s claim, and deciding
whether and how much to allocate to each spouse. Respondent’s
refusal to abate interest that accrued as a result of that
decision was not ministerial.5
5 Since respondent’s reallocation of the $150,000 estimated
tax payment was not ministerial, we need not decide if it was an
error. Compare Gordon v. United States, 757 F.2d 1157, 1160
(11th Cir. 1985), and Gens v. United States, 230 Ct. Cl. 42, 673
F.2d 366, 368 (1982) (overpayment allocated between spouses in
proportion to their tax payments), with Bloomfield v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 745, 752 (IRS properly allocated refund of
overpayment on a joint return to wife; husband’s redress lies in
suit against her for contribution). If respondent seeks payment
through use of lien or levy procedures of any amount owing from
petitioner as a result of respondent’s reallocation of
petitioner’s $150,000 payment, petitioner may be able to obtain
judicial review of that issue (1) on a prepayment basis in a
subsequent collection action in this Court under sec. 6330, or
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011