- 26 -
least 13 days in the processing of the installment payment
agreement, and a concomitant delay in the start of petitioner’s
payments under the agreement. Further examination into what
happened may result in a different conclusion. Whether Krogue’s
error resulted in a delay in payment is an uncertainty as to a
material fact and to this extent we conclude that respondent has
failed to make the showing necessary to warrant granting the
summary judgment motion. See Dahlstrom v. Commissioner, 85 T.C.
at 821.
Accordingly, we shall deny respondent’s summary judgment
motion with respect to the May 31 through June 24, 2002, portion
of the third period.
However, we conclude and we have found that, during the
third period through May 30, 2002, neither Krogue nor Rogers was
erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial or managerial
act. We shall grant respondent’s summary judgment motion with
respect to this portion of the third period.
(4) Fourth Period (June 25--Dec. 13, 2002)
Petitioner mailed the first payment on his 1-year
installment plan on June 25, 2002, and continued making monthly
payments through November 2002. Petitioner paid the balance of
his 2000 tax obligation on December 13, 2002. The record herein
does not show contacts between petitioner and the IRS during this
period other than petitioner’s mailing his payments to the IRS.
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008