- 12 - When computing those liabilities, respondent did not allow as itemized deductions the property taxes originally deducted by petitioners on their Schedules F. Even assuming that this was a ministerial act, for purposes of interest abatement, respondent’s error must have contributed to errors or delays in petitioners’ payment of the liabilities. See sec. 6404(e)(1); see also Hawksley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-354; Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398. The record indicates that respondent’s original disallowance of deductions for the property taxes had no effect on petitioners’ payment of their income tax liabilities. Petitioners have never attempted to pay any portion of the liabilities, nor do petitioners contend that they would have paid had they known earlier the correct amount. Moreover, once petitioners learned of the correct total of their income tax liabilities during discussions of the Rule 155 computation, petitioners still made no payment attempts and even disputed the deficiency amounts on their Form 843. Accordingly, we conclude that any delays in petitioners’ payment of their income tax liabilities were not attributable to any error by respondent in performing a ministerial act and that respondent’s denial of petitioners’ claim for abatement of interest was not an abuse of discretion.Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011