- 4 -
delays on the part of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in
processing their offers in compromise.2 By a notice of final
determination dated October 31, 2001, respondent rejected in full
petitioners’ 1998 requests for abatement.
Filings and Proceedings in This Court
Petitioners timely petitioned this Court for review of
respondent’s failure to abate interest. In the petition,
petitioners also requested the Court to review respondent’s
failure to abate additions to tax. By order dated August 15,
2002, the Court granted respondent’s motion to dismiss for lack
of jurisdiction and to strike insofar as the petition relates to
respondent’s failure to abate additions to tax. The Court
conducted a trial with respect to the interest abatement issue at
its trial session in Dallas, Texas, on February 25, 2003.
OPINION
I. Law
A. Section 6404
As applicable to the years for which petitioners seek
relief, section 6404(e)(1) provided as follows:3
2 Petitioners also complained of erroneous advice provided
by the Internal Revenue Service that resulted in an increased tax
liability for their 1993 taxable year. At trial, petitioners did
not rely on that allegation as a ground for interest abatement.
3 Congress amended sec. 6404(e)(1) in 1996 to apply to
“unreasonable” errors and delays and to “managerial” as well as
ministerial acts. Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168,
sec. 301(a), 110 Stat. 1457 (1996). Those amendments apply to
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011