- 11 -
pay the tax liabilities in August 1996, no erroneous or dilatory
performance of a ministerial act by an employee of the IRS
contributed to a delay or error in payment during the period
between the first call and the date of the second call.
Therefore, respondent did not abuse his discretion in refusing to
abate interest on petitioners’ income tax liabilities for the
period from August 1996 to December 22, 1996.
December 22, 1996 to August 11, 1999
We have found as a fact that during the second call the ACS
employee informed petitioner that the additional amounts would be
adjusted at the end of the 36 month installment term, and that
all the balances would come off at the end. The ACS employee did
not clarify to petitioner that unassessed interest would continue
to accrue during the installment period, but instead confirmed
petitioner’s flawed understanding of the agreement. The act by
the ACS employee of misinforming petitioners about what their
total liability would ultimately be was ministerial. Douponce v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398; see also Smith v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-1; Kincaid v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1999-419; sec. 301.6404-2(c), Example (11), Proced. &
Admin. Regs. All prerequisites to the act of establishing an
installment agreement had been performed during the first call
and during the initial processing of petitioners’ case by the
IRS. The clarification of petitioners’ installment agreement did
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011