- 6 -
the decision was made to assert civil fraud penalties against
petitioner for 1989, 1990, and 1991.
On October 4, 1999, respondent issued a notice of deficiency
to petitioner determining fraud penalties under section 6663 for
1989, 1990, and 1991. Petitioner sought a redetermination in
this Court only with respect to the fraud penalty for 1991.
The fraud penalties for 1989 and 1990 were assessed on April
19, 2000, and petitioner paid them on October 17, 2000. On
October 20, 2000, petitioner filed a Claim for Refund and Request
for Abatement of Penalty and Interest with respect to 1989 and
1990. On September 6, 2001, respondent sent petitioner a letter
advising him of a preliminary determination to deny his claim for
abatement of interest, with an “explanation” of the reasons for
the denial attached. The attached explanation stated in part:
Your claim for abatement of interest cannot be allowed
since there were no errors or delays in performing a
ministerial act. For instance, the agent taking
maternity leave * * * is not a ministerial act, nor is
the delay caused by the investigation, the appeal
process, or the court proceedings.
Petitioner administratively appealed this determination, and on
January 11, 2002, respondent issued a notice of final
determination to petitioner denying his request for abatement of
interest for 1989 and 1990 and giving the following reason:
“There was no error or delay relating to the performance of a
ministerial act in processing the examination of your return.”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011