- 14 -
In 1997, the decision documents were sent to the Court, and
the decision was entered. The decision became final in 1998, and
the assessments followed.
Petitioner also argues that there was an abuse of discretion
in denying petitioner’s request without considering “pertinent
evidence”, examining “relevant factors”, and articulating “a
satisfactory explanation”. Petitioner relies on Beagles v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-67, in arguing that the
Commissioner allowed a partial abatement of interest in a
different partnership associated with the Swanton coal programs.
In Beagles, however, the partner became terminally ill and the
surviving spouse presented relevant documents to the Appeals
officer. Here, petitioner did not provide any evidence during
the administrative process to support his claim that he settled
his case several years prior to the assessments. His spouse was
given relief under section 6015. In any event, as in Beagles, we
conclude that the delays involved in this case were not
attributable to ministerial acts. Relief given administratively
in different circumstances does not establish abuse of
discretion. See Fargo v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-13;
Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-138.
Petitioner also complains that Vogel and Ohrtman did not
contact Sullivan regarding the Swanton coal programs.
Petitioner and his representatives failed to contact Ohrtman
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011