- 45 -
petitioners. Compare example (2) to sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(2),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra.
From the foregoing, we conclude that there was no abuse of
discretion in respondent’s failure to abate interest for any part
of the first period.
We hold for respondent on this issue.
B. Second Period (Dec. 14, 1994, through May 2, 1995)
On opening brief, petitioners contend as follows with regard
to the second period:
Petitioners sent their executed decision document to
Cincinnati Appeals Office on December 14, 1994. Almost four
and one-half months passed before it was signed by Mr.
Winkler on April 25, 1995. Another week passed before it
was actually filed with the United States Tax Court on May
2, 1995. Due to the delay evident in such time lag,
Petitioners seek abatement of interest for the period
running from December 14, 1994 to May 2, 1995.
On answering brief, respondent replies as follows to
petitioners’ contentions:
While respondent does not necessarily agree with
petitioners’ argument on this particular matter and does not
concur that counter-signing and filing stipulated decision
documents implicates a ministerial decision, respondent will
concede that an abatement of interest, for the period from
February 25, 1995 through April 25, 1995, should be allowed
to petitioners in the unusual circumstances of this case.
In making this concession, however, respondent notes two
points detailed below.
The two points respondent refers to are as follows:
1. Respondent’s counsel proceeded with settling
individual Barrister cases out of alphabetical order “where
a taxpayer or representative contacted respondent’s counsel
Page: Previous 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011