- 9 -
significant issue raised was whether Respondent abused its [sic]
discretion by denying Petitioners’ claims for abatement of
interest.”
Petitioners assert that there were two aspects to
respondent’s abuse of discretion--(1) delay in performing
ministerial acts and (2) error in performing ministerial acts.
Petitioners point out that respondent conceded error in both
aspects, contend that petitioners prevailed on both aspects, and
conclude that they “satisfy the prevailing party requirement.
Bowden v. Comm’r, TCM 1999-30, citing Huckaby, 804 F.2d 297 (5th
Cir. 1986).”
Respondent contends:
Petitioners originally requested interest abatement of
all assessed interest (other than the partial abatement
granted by respondent’s Appeals Office) attributable to
petitioners’ disallowed losses and credits claimed from
their investment in Thompson Equipment Associates.
Other than for a three-month period, petitioners were
unsuccessful in their argument for interest abatement.
Petitioners also argued for interest abatement derived
from errors by respondent in the amount of interest
computed. Respondent conceded before trial * * *
[several small items listed]. Other than these
concessions, all of petitioners’ arguments about errors
in calculating interest in this case were rejected by
the Court. Goetee, T.C. Memo. 2003-43, slip op. at 66,
67, and 71. Petitioners did not substantially prevail
as to the interest abatement and interest errors issues
in this litigation.
We agree with respondent.
The instant case is brought under section 6404(h)(1), to
determine whether respondent’s “failure to abate interest under
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