Stanley R. Harbaugh and Bonnie L. Harbaugh - Page 11

                                       - 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