- 13 -
find that respondent should have abated the interest that accrued
from December 22, 1996, until the date it became clear to
petitioners that their liabilities had not, in fact, been
extinguished. The first notice indicating that there were
amounts still outstanding after petitioners’ July 22, 1999,
payment was the monthly statement dated August 11, 1999.
Therefore, we conclude that respondent abused his discretion in
refusing to abate interest that accrued during the period from
December 22, 1996 to August 11, 1999.
August 11, 1999 to Present
After the August 11, 1999, statement was received by
petitioners, petitioners were on notice that their understanding
of the installment agreement was incorrect and that some
additional amounts were still due. Their failure to make any
payments after that date was a result of their decision to
challenge respondent’s position. There was no erroneous or
dilatory performance of a ministerial act on respondent’s part to
cause this delay. Therefore, we hold that respondent did not
abuse his discretion in refusing to abate interest for the period
after August 11, 1999.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Last modified: May 25, 2011