- 18 -
1999. During this period, the delay appears to be the
responsibility of South Bay’s TMP. Nothing in the record
indicates otherwise. Therefore, petitioners are not entitled to
abatement of interest for the period April 1, 1998, through March
13, 1999.
After South Bay’s TMP signed the closing agreement and sent
it back to respondent, respondent was required to countersign the
closing agreement. The testimony concerning respondent’s receipt
of the executed closing agreement is speculative. Taking into
account the date of execution, respondent likely received the
signed closing agreement by the end of March. See Goettee v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-43. Respondent drafted the closing
agreements, which were very similar to those used in all the
Swanton program settlements. Respondent’s countersignature did
not require discretion and consequently was a ministerial act.
See id. Respondent countersigned South Bay’s closing agreement on
July 19, 1999, 4 months after South Bay signed it. Respondent has
not adequately explained the specific events that occurred during
that period to cause the delay, or why abatement of interest for
that period was denied. See, e.g., Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-123. In light of the facts of this case, we believe 3-
1/2 months was an unreasonable delay. Petitioners are entitled to
interest abatement for respondent’s delay in countersigning the
closing agreement, for the period April 1 through July 19, 1999.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011