- 10 -
this section was an abuse of discretion”. The parties’
stipulation as to the most significant issue presented (sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(i)(II)) basically tracks the statute’s language.
Thus, petitioners’ overall success controls whether they
substantially prevailed on the most significant issue presented.
We discuss individual elements of petitioners’ claims and what
became of these elements, but we do so for convenience of
analysis, with the focus being on the forest and not the
individual trees.
Initially, petitioners proceeded pro se. In their petition,
they requested abatement of interest as to 1978, 1979, 1981,
1982, and 1983. After respondent’s motion for partial summary
judgment was granted and respondent’s motion to dismiss was
denied, petitioners retained their present counsel. Goettee v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-454. At the time of the first
partial trial in the instant case, petitioners’ trial memorandum
requested abatement of an aggregate of about $55,000 of interest
for 1979, 1981, and 1982, and ascribed this entirely to “delays
attributable in part to delay by IRS personnel in their
performance of ministerial acts.” In their opening brief after
completion of the trial in the instant case, petitioners
contended that:
2. Petitioners are entitled to an abatement of interest
from December 2, 1993 to October 26, 1994, and December
14, 1994 to April 25, 1995, and other periods due to
delays by Respondent in performing ministerial acts.
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