- 9 -
Finally, the ACS employee did not have the authority to
compromise petitioners’ liabilities. Deleg. Order No. 11 (Rev.
24), 1994-2 C.B. 550. It is the responsibility of the person
entering into an agreement with an employee of the IRS to
ascertain that the employee stays within the bounds of her
authority. Boulez v. Commissioner, 810 F.2d 209, 218 (D.C. Cir.
1987), affg. 76 T.C. 209 (1981). A compromise agreement made by
an employee lacking the requisite authority is not binding on the
Commissioner. Id.
We therefore conclude that petitioner and the ACS employee
did not reach a valid agreement to compromise petitioners’ tax
liabilities during the first or second call.
Abatement of Interest
We now decide whether respondent abused his discretion by
refusing to abate interest on petitioners’ liabilities.
Section 6404(e)(1)(B) provides that the Commissioner may
abate all or any part of an assessment of interest on any payment
of certain taxes if an error or delay in such payment is
attributable to an officer or employee of the IRS being
“erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act”.7 A
7 Congress amended sec. 6404(e) in 1996 to permit abatement
of interest for “unreasonable” error or delay in performing a
ministerial or “managerial” act. Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub.
L. 104-168, sec. 301(a), 110 Stat. 1457 (1996). That standard
applies only to tax years beginning after July 30, 1996, and thus
does not apply in the present case. Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011