- 2 -
2001. The issue for decision is whether respondent’s denial of
petitioners’ remaining claim for abatement of interest relating
to petitioners’ 1991-95 tax years was an abuse of discretion. We
hold that it was with respect to the time from July 3 to July 23,
2002.1
Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code as
amended. Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice
and Procedure. References to petitioner are to Thomas Bo.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Some of the facts have been stipulated and are so found.
A. Petitioners
Petitioners are married and lived in Malabar, Florida, when
they filed the petition. They have four children.
Petitioner operated a business through which he sold,
leased, and installed security, monitoring, and alarm systems.
Petitioner wife did the office work for the business including
compiling data needed to prepare petitioners’ tax returns. At a
1 Respondent filed a motion for summary judgment which we
granted with respect to whether petitioners are entitled to
relief under sec. 6404(e)(1)(A), which applies to any deficiency
attributable to any ministerial delay by respondent. We did so
because respondent determined no deficiencies with respect to the
years in issue. We denied respondent’s motion for summary
judgment with respect to sec. 6404(e)(1)(B) and the flush
language of sec. 6404(e)(1) as to whether petitioners’ delay in
paying their 1991-95 taxes was attributable to erroneous or
dilatory performance of a ministerial act by an officer or
employee of the Internal Revenue Service, and, if so, whether
petitioners caused any significant aspect of the delay.
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