- 13 -
interest sought to be abated) was not caused by any error or
dilatory action of respondent in performing a managerial or
ministerial act, (2) petitioner was solely responsible for the
delay in paying the taxes shown on his tax return, and (3)
respondent did not abuse respondent’s discretion in denying
petitioner’s request to abate interest.
It is not enough for petitioner to show that interest is
attributable to IRS officers’ or employees’ being erroneous or
dilatory; he also must show that they were erroneous or dilatory
“in performing a ministerial or managerial act”. Sec.
6404(e)(1)(B). Further, petitioner must show that respondent’s
failure to abate interest was an abuse of discretion. However,
by moving for summary judgment, respondent has assumed the
obligation of showing that respondent is entitled to a decision
as a matter of law. See Rule 121(b).
By and large, respondent has satisfied this obligation.
However, we conclude that, as to portions of two periods
respondent has come up short because of the absence of
information or even clear allegations--one involving delays in
performing managerial acts and one involving an error in
performing a ministerial act.
Accordingly, respondent’s motion for summary judgment will
be granted in part and denied in part.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008