- 4 -
interest directly attributable to respondent’s error
(providing a wrong payoff amount). There is no such
error in this case, but merely an alleged unreasonable
delay in considering an offer in compromise. Moreover,
petitioner has not made any allegation that section
6404(a) applies. * * *
Petitioner’s objection to respondent’s motion for summary
judgment does not disagree with respondent’s characterization of
the claimed abuse of discretion in this case. Petitioner simply
disagrees with our Opinion in Woodral v. Commissioner, supra,
arguing that our Opinion too narrowly defined the term
“deficiency” as used in section 6404(e)(1)(A).
Discussion
Under Rule 121, a summary adjudication may be made “if the
pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions,
and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits,
if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law.”
Rule 121(b). No material facts are in dispute in this case;
thus, whether respondent has authority to abate interest on
employment taxes may be decided as a matter of law.
Section 6404(e)(1) provides in pertinent part:
(1) In general.–-In the case of any assessment of
interest on--
(A) any deficiency attributable in whole or
in part to any unreasonable error or delay by an
officer or employee of the Internal Revenue
Service (acting in his official capacity) in
performing a ministerial or managerial act, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011