Orlando J. and Christina E. Guerrero - Page 9

                                        - 9 -                                         
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220.  Such a broad claim extends              
          beyond the intention of the statute.  See H. Rept. 99-426, supra            
          at 844, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 844; S. Rept. 99-313, supra at              
          208, 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at 208.  Respondent’s failure to abate            
          interest based on petitioners’ blanket request was not an abuse             
          of discretion.  See Donovan v. Commissioner, supra.                         
               In their posttrial memorandum petitioners argue that                   
          interest should be abated because they requested the Secretary to           
          recalculate their income tax liability for 2000, and the                    
          Secretary had all required Forms 1099 and other information to do           
          so accurately and promptly.  Petitioners contend that the act of            
          processing their 2000 return accurately was a ministerial act.              
          We disagree.  The processing and evaluation of their income tax             
          return required the application of Federal tax laws, which was              
          not a ministerial or managerial act.                                        
               In this case respondent did not learn that petitioners’ IRA            
          deduction was erroneous until after he had contacted petitioners            
          and requested information concerning the deduction.  After                  
          petitioners conceded the deduction was erroneous, respondent                
          promptly recalculated petitioners’ 2000 income tax liability and            
          notified them of the results.  Less than 1 year later, respondent           
          again contacted petitioners regarding their failure to treat the            
          entire amount of the retirement distributions as taxable income.            
          Again respondent acted promptly to determine petitioners’ correct           






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011