- 33 -
Respondent’s failure to abate interest for the period April
25 through May 2, 1995, was not an abuse of discretion.
OPINION
The instant case presents two categories of issues: (1)
Whether respondent’s failure to abate interest for certain time
periods constitutes an abuse of discretion, and (2) whether
respondent’s interest computations are correct. The proper
treatment of petitioners’ offer in compromise payment arguably
falls into both categories.10 We consider first the issues of
abatements for certain time periods.
I. Abatements of Interest
Petitioners contend that respondent’s failure to abate
interest for the periods of (1) December 2, 1993, through October
26, 1994 (the first period), and (2) December 14, 1994, through
May 2, 1995 (the second period), constitutes an abuse of
discretion because the interest that accrued during each of these
periods is attributable to a delay in the performance of a
ministerial act by respondent. Petitioners also urge us to order
abatement for unspecified additional periods.
Respondent concedes that an abatement of interest for part
of the second period--February 25 through April 25, 1995--is
appropriate. Respondent contends, however, that the failure to
10 Petitioners also filed a motion to shift the burden of
proof. Because we do not decide any issues based on the burden
of proof, we deny petitioners’ motion as moot.
Page: Previous 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011