- 15 -
period May 8, 1992, through April 15, 1999. We therefore must
review the events that occurred after May 8, 1992, to determine
whether respondent abused his discretion.
B. May 9, 1992, Through September 1993
From May 9 to August 14, 1992, respondent was involved in
litigation before this Court concerning the pre-TEFRA Swanton
programs. In accordance with our holding above, it was not an
abuse of discretion for respondent to deny interest abatement for
that period. See Lee v. Commissioner, supra at 150.
After the completion of the pre-TEFRA Tax Court litigation,
Ms. Sullivan negotiated with counsel for the TEFRA Swanton
programs regarding the final terms of settlement until September
1993. The TEFRA Swanton settlement work was added to Ms.
Sullivan’s normal caseload. According to her testimony, because
she was not assisted by any other attorney, she could not
finalize the terms of settlement while briefing the pre-TEFRA
cases. The settlements could have been completed more quickly if
more than one person had regularly been working on them.
Arguably, respondent made a managerial error when he assigned
only one employee to handle the settlement of all of the TEFRA
partnerships. This managerial decision contributed to the delay
in the resolution of petitioner’s case after the overall
settlement was reached.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011