- 11 -
Petitioners also argue that their incorrect reporting was
attributable, in part, to erroneous advice they received from
respondent’s agent.4 However, such advice, whether accurate or
not, contains the legal or administrative judgment of the person
giving the advice and is not a ministerial or managerial act.
See Crawford v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-10; sec. 301.6404-
2(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Respondent did not abuse his
discretion by refusing to abate interest arguably attributable to
his agent’s erroneous advice.
Petitioners do not persuade us that respondent abused his
discretion in refusing to abate interest after April 22, 2002,
when respondent sent petitioners his proposed changes to their
2000 return. Petitioners simply argue that had respondent acted
more promptly in assessing their correct 2000 income tax
liability, petitioners would have paid it earlier, and, as a
result, they would not have incurred interest charges.
Abatement of interest is not appropriate simply because a
taxpayer might have made a tax payment sooner. See Braun v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-221. Respondent had determined
4Petitioners claim that one of respondent’s employees
informed petitioners over the telephone that they would not incur
the 10-percent early withdrawal penalty pursuant to sec. 72(t) on
the funds used to build their house, nor would they have to
report those funds as taxable income. However, the record
suggests that petitioners may not have given the employee
complete and accurate factual information regarding the house
they were building or the source of the funds.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011