- 11 - return was timely filed and selected for examination approximately 1 year later. Approximately 7 months later the revenue agent’s report was issued proposing adjustments similar to those made in other years. Less than a year after the return had been selected for examination, and within months of the issuance of the revenue agent’s report, respondent issued a notice of deficiency determining a deficiency in petitioners’ 1989 Federal income tax.8 Petitioners failed to timely petition this Court in response to that notice, and the deficiency, a penalty, an addition to tax, and interest were appropriately assessed. We find no delay in the assessment process as outlined above, much less any dilatory or erroneous act by respondent’s employee in performing a ministerial act that caused any delay. The interest that accrued on petitioners’ 1989 Federal income tax liability resulted from petitioners’ failure to pay their 1989 Federal income tax liability when due. Section 6404(e) does not authorize the abatement of interest upon that ground, and respondent’s refusal to grant such an abatement is not an abuse of discretion. See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220; Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398. 8 We note that an “unreasonable delay in the issuance of a statutory notice of deficiency after the IRS and the taxpayer have completed efforts to resolve the matter” could be a ground for abatement of interest under sec. 6404(e), see H. Rept. 99- 426, at 845 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 845, but there was no such delay in this case.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011