- 9 -
being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial or
managerial act. On the contrary, the record indicates that any
delay that may have occurred was attributable to petitioner.5
Section 6404(e)(1) prohibits abatement of interest if a
significant aspect of the error or delay is attributable to the
taxpayer.
Finally, petitioner cannot successfully argue that
respondent’s action enforcing the terms of the settlement between
petitioner and respondent was an abuse of discretion. The
decision resolving petitioner’s deficiency case included the
parties’ stipulation acknowledging that statutory interest would
be assessed on both the deficiencies and penalties for the years
at issue as required by law. See sec. 6601(a), (e)(2).
Respondent assessed interest in accordance with the stipulation
of the parties. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that there
5 Petitioner, who was represented by both a tax attorney and
a certified public accountant, failed to cooperate with
respondent during the audit in that petitioner refused to provide
information requested by respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007