- 8 -
employee that results in the accrual of interest the taxpayer
seeks to have abated.
In the abatement claims, petitioners state that they have a
good faith belief that delays occurred in preforming ministerial
acts, but they have failed to identify a single instance of
respondent’s dilatory performance of a ministerial act, and
respondent has not admitted to any. Instead, petitioners offered
the following in their opening brief:
While petitioners believed, and still believe, that a
deduction was probably claimable under existing law,
attempts were made to clarify the situation by
requesting retroactive legislation in Congress. There
was substantial interest in this legislation which made
it through numerous committee layers at various times.
However, the legislation failed to pass prior to this
matter being finally set for trial. After careful
reconsideration of the matter, the Respondent agreed
that some charitable deductions were proper and the
underlying tax liability was settled. However, due to
the delay in waiting for legislation, a delay caused by
an illness and death of a close family member of
Petitioners’ counsel, and other factors as noted in the
stipulated agreed facts, substantial interest was
imposed.
The above-quoted passage, as well as the statements
contained in the abatement claims, greatly undermines
petitioners’ claim to section 6404(e) relief. We have reviewed
the examination history (including Appeals consideration and
litigation phases) of petitioners’ Federal income tax returns for
the underlying years as set forth in the Appeals officer’s
chronology of events and, with the exception of the duration of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011