- 14 -
abatement of interest. A ministerial error by respondent caused
both the taxpayer in Douponce and petitioners to delay paying
their tax.
Respondent contends that Douponce is distinguishable from
this case because there is no evidence that petitioners were
misled by incorrect information from respondent concerning the
correct amount of tax due for 1980. We disagree. As in
Douponce, “the only reason for the delay” in petitioners’ payment
of tax was respondent’s ministerial error; i.e., the loss of
petitioners’ amended returns for 11 years.
Respondent contends that this situation is analogous to that
in Wish v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-57. We disagree. In
Wish, the taxpayers knew they owed tax for 1981 but resisted
collection efforts, anticipating that they would use a refund for
1985 to pay their 1981 tax. We held in Wish that the
Commissioner’s refusal to abate interest that accrued for 1981
while the taxpayers were awaiting their refund for 1985 was not
an abuse of discretion because the delay in processing the refund
did not cause the taxpayers to delay paying their 1981 tax. We
said that the taxpayer in Wish “chose to await the determination
of the refund claim for 1985, while all along requesting holds on
collection.” Here, unlike the taxpayers in Wish, petitioners
reasonably believed they had taken steps sufficient to pay their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011