- 10 -
managerial nor a ministerial act. Sec. 301.6404-2(b)(1) and (2),
Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Section 6404(h)(1) provides the Tax Court with jurisdiction
to review denials of requests for abatement of interest under an
abuse of discretion standard. Action constitutes an abuse of
discretion where arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Therefore, the question here before the Court is whether this
case reveals a managerial or ministerial error such that
respondent’s failure to abate interest reflects abused
discretion.
Petitioner’s position is that payment of the $4,244.75
resolved her liabilities for 1998 in full, including interest.
Thus, petitioner is essentially arguing that the settlement
represented a compromise of her 1998 tax year for $4,244.75. If
in fact petitioner reached an enforceable agreement to settle all
liabilities for 1998, including interest, with a payment of
$4,244.75, failure by IRS employees properly to communicate this
information to the Service Center and/or failure by Service
Center personnel properly to take into account and input this
information in computing any final balance on petitioner’s
account was a mere ministerial error. No judgment or discretion
would have remained to be exercised once such an enforceable
agreement had come into being.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011