Lawrence S. and Myrna Ahmaogak - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          the docketed cases, find nothing out of the ordinary in either              
          the sequence of events or the passage of time between events.               
          Moreover, petitioners acknowledge, as evidenced by the above-               
          quoted passages, that the length of time that the docketed cases            
          were pending is not attributable to the erroneous or dilatory               
          performance of a ministerial act by respondent’s employee.  See             
          Lee v. Commissioner, supra.                                                 
               Resolution of the docketed cases was obviously delayed to              
          allow for the enactment of the proposed legislation, and the                
          delay resulted in the imposition of interest.  We are not                   
          unsympathetic to petitioners’ situation and the frustration that            
          must have followed their failed attempts to resolve their tax               
          disputes through legislation long promised but never enacted.               
          Nevertheless, under the circumstances, the additional interest              
          that accrued during the period of delay of the docketed cases is            
          not subject to abatement under section 6404(e).  Simply put, the            
          interest that accrued on petitioners’ Federal income tax                    
          liabilities for the underlying years results from petitioners’              
          failure to pay their Federal income tax liability for each year             
          when due.  Section 6404(e) does not authorize the abatement of              
          interest upon that ground, and respondent’s refusal to do so is             
          not an abuse of discretion.  See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C.              
          Memo. 2000-220; Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398.              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011