- 6 -
his discretion arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis
in fact or law.” Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149 (1999).
B. Application to This Case
As noted above, petitioners reported the tax amounts that
are generating the interest at issue. Accordingly, there are no
deficiencies involved in this case, see sec. 6211(a), and
petitioners can seek interest abatement only pursuant to section
6404(e)(1)(B). Respondent is authorized to abate interest under
section 6404(e)(1)(B) in this case only to the extent any delay
in petitioners’ payment of their 1993 and 1994 tax liabilities is
attributable to the erroneous or dilatory performance of a
ministerial act by an officer or employee of the IRS.
II. Petitioners’ Allegations
At trial, petitioners identified numerous instances of what
they allege to be erroneous or dilatory performance of
ministerial acts by IRS employees during the processing of their
offers in compromise and requests for abatement. Specifically,
petitioners allege that various IRS personnel: (1) Failed to
notify petitioners of the rejection of their second offer in
compromise, (2) ignored petitioners’ request for a report listing
the factors underlying the rejection of their third offer in
compromise, (3) temporarily refused to grant petitioners a
requested Appeals conference following the rejection of their
third offer in compromise, (4) directed petitioners to submit
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011