- 3 -
10, 2002, petitioner, while residing in Gaithersburg, Maryland,
filed his petition with this Court.
OPINION
Petitioner seeks a remand to the Appeals Office for further
proceedings because he contends that the Appeals officer failed
to complete the hearing process or take into consideration his
request for an abatement of interest and penalties.2
We agree with petitioner that his hearing was not completed
and that respondent failed to consider his request for an
abatement of interest and penalties. We, however, consider
petitioner’s contentions and conclude that they lack merit and
are legally insufficient to forestall collection. Petitioner did
not pay his 1988 and 1992 tax liabilities. As a result, section
6404(e) does not permit an abatement of the interest that accrued
on the unpaid tax before respondent contacted petitioner in
writing relating to petitioner’s 1988 and 1992 tax liabilities.
Downing v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 22, 31 (2002). In addition,
interest accrued after respondent contacted petitioner may not be
abated because there is no evidence that the accrual of such
interest was attributable to respondent’s error or delay in
performing a ministerial act. Sec. 6404(e)(1); Katz v.
Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 341 (2000). Furthermore, petitioner
2 The record does not disclose the nature of the penalties
for which respondent contends petitioner is liable.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011