T.C. Memo. 2001-290
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
ROBERT A. AND NANCI M. SPURGIN, Petitioners v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11196-00. Filed November 2, 2001.
Robert A. and Nanci M. Spurgin, pro sese.
Michael A. Skeen, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM FINDINGS OF FACT AND OPINION
DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge
Robert N. Armen, Jr., pursuant to the provisions of section
7443A(b)(5) and Rules 180, 181, and 183.1 The Court agrees with
and adopts the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set
forth below.
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended, and all Rule references
are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
- 2 -
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
ARMEN, Special Trial Judge: On May 9, 2000, respondent
issued a notice of final determination denying petitioners’ claim
to abate interest for the taxable year 1993. Petitioners timely
filed a petition under section 6404(i) and Rules 280-284.2
The issue for decision is whether respondent abused his
discretion by denying petitioners’ claim for abatement of
interest for the taxable year 1993. We hold that respondent did
not abuse his discretion.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Many of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioners resided in Irvine, California, at the time
that their petition was filed with this Court.
A. Petitioners’ 1993 Tax Return and Unpaid Tax Liability
Prior to 1993, Robert Spurgin (petitioner) invested in a
partnership known as “IWF North America” (IWF). Including
petitioner, there were a total of five partners in IWF.
In 1990, a dispute arose among the partners regarding the
allocation of a $3 million distribution to be made by IWF.
Petitioner sued the other partners in order to resolve the
2
Sec. 6404(i) was originally enacted as sec. 6404(g) by
the Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2 (TBOR 2), Pub. L. 104-168, sec.
302, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996). Sec. 6404(g) was redesignated as
sec. 6404(i) by the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring &
Reform Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-206, secs. 3505(a), 3309(a), 112
Stat. 743, 745. However, Title XXVII of the Tax Court Rules of
Practice and Procedure, dealing with actions for review of
failure to abate interest, continues to reflect the original
statutory designation.
- 3 -
dispute. Pursuant to a court order, petitioners received a
distribution in 1993 from IWF in the amount of $206,000.
In order to gauge their Federal income tax liability for
1993, petitioners consulted with a certified public accountant,
Brian Ringler, who provided petitioners with his estimate of
their liability. Thereafter, in September 1993, petitioners made
an estimated tax payment in the amount of $30,000. In January
1994, petitioners made a second estimated tax payment in the
amount of $2,360.
In April 1994, petitioners received Schedule K-1, Partner’s
Share of Income, Credits, Deductions, etc., from IWF. The
Schedule K-1 revealed that petitioner’s distributive share of
partnership income was as follows:
Ordinary Income $262,045
Other Portfolio Income -85,000
Schedule E Activity Income 177,045
Interest (investment income) 45,581
Petitioners retained Brad Gillespie, a certified public
accountant, to prepare their Federal income tax return for 1993.
Relying on the aforementioned Schedule K-1 and other information,
Mr. Gillespie determined petitioners’ tax liability as follows:
- 4 -
Total tax $62,602
Less: estimated tax payments
Sept. 1993 $30,000
Jan. 1994 2,360 -32,360
Less: deferral of additional
1993 taxes1 -1,963
Balance 28,279
Plus: estimated tax penalty 111
Amount owed 28,390
1
For 1993, taxpayers could elect to defer two-thirds of
their additional 1993 taxes that were due solely to the rate
increases reflected in the 1993 tax rate schedules. Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Pub. L. 103-66, sec. 13201(d),
107 Stat. 459-461. Petitioners so elected by attaching Form
8841, Deferral of Additional 1993 Taxes, to their timely filed
return.
Petitioners remitted $500 with their 1993 return, but they
made no further payment against their tax liability until August
1997. See infra “E”.
By notice dated June 13, 1994, respondent notified
petitioners that they did not qualify for deferral of additional
1993 taxes because they had failed to make sufficient payment
toward their reported liability.3 Respondent also notified
petitioners that the amount owed was $31,602, determined as
follows:
Tax as reported $62,602.00
Less: Estimated tax payments -32,360.00
Payment with return -500.00
Unpaid tax 29,742.00
Plus: estimated tax penalty 1,224.45
Late payment penalty 297.42
Interest 338.41
Amount owed 31,602.28
Finally, respondent requested that petitioners pay the amount
3
In order to qualify for deferral of additional 1993
taxes, a taxpayer was required to pay at least 90 percent of a
specified liability. See Notice 93-51, 1993-2 C.B. 337.
- 5 -
owed by June 23, 1994, in order “to avoid more interest and
penalties.”
B. Petitioners’ Attempts To Obtain a Loan
In 1994, petitioners tried three times to obtain a loan in
order to satisfy their outstanding tax liability.
Prior to April 28, 1994, petitioners applied for a $200,000
home equity line of credit from Union Bank. By statement dated
April 28, 1994, Union Bank declined to extend credit to
petitioners for the following reasons: (1) “Income insufficient
for amount of credit requested” and (2) “Excessive obligations in
relation to income”.
Prior to May 25, 1994, petitioners applied for a “home
equity line of credit increase” from First Interstate Bank. By
letter dated May 25, 1994, First Interstate Bank declined
petitioners’ application for the following reasons: (1) “Your
obligations are excessive” and (2) “Your credit history of making
payments when due is not satisfactory.”
Prior to August 5, 1994, petitioners applied for a home
equity loan from The Prudential Savings Bank, F.S.B. By notice
dated August 5, 1994, The Prudential Savings Bank denied
petitioners’ request for credit for the following reason:
“Insufficient income for amount of credit requested”.
- 6 -
C. The Collection Process
By letter dated July 14, 1994, petitioner acknowledged
receipt of respondent’s notice dated June 13, 1994, requesting
payment of petitioners’ outstanding tax liability. Petitioner
stated that he was “unable to pay the full amount at this time”
and that he “would like to explore the opportunity of paying the
tax in installments or some other mutually agreeable
alternative.”
By letter dated September 2, 1994, respondent replied to
petitioner’s aforementioned letter, stating in part as follows:
Because of the amount you still owe on your current
installment agreement, we need to review your financial
condition. Please complete the enclosed Form 433-F,
Collection Information Statement, and return it within
10 days.
Whether petitioners ever returned Form 433-F to respondent is not
established by the record, nor is there any indication that the
parties ever had any further discussion regarding an installment
agreement for the taxable year 1993.
By notices dated October 17, 1994, November 21, 1994, and
December 26, 1994, respondent continued to advise petitioners
that payment of their 1993 tax liability was overdue. Indeed,
the third such notice advised petitioners of respondent’s intent
to levy if petitioners failed to pay their tax liability.
By letter dated February 22, 1995, petitioners were advised
that their case had been transferred to respondent’s Problem
- 7 -
Resolution Office in order to “better serve you in clearing up
the problem you are having with your taxes.”4 Linda Caballero, a
problem resolution technician, was assigned to petitioners’ case.
Ms. Caballero requested that petitioners complete Form 433-A,
Collection Information Statement for Individuals, and Form 433-B,
Collection Information Statement for Businesses. Petitioners
completed Forms 433-A and 433-B and forwarded the forms to Ms.
Caballero.
After reviewing Forms 433-A and 433-B and accepting the
information therein at face value, Ms. Caballero informed
petitioners as follows:
This letter confirms our telephone conversation on 12-
21-95 concerning your 1993/1040 tax liability. Based
on the financial information statement you submitted, I
have determined that you are currently unable to make
payments toward your tax liability. Therefore, your
account is being placed in a currently uncollectible
status.[1] * * * this suspension is temporary and
interest and/or penalties will continue to accrue until
the tax is paid in full. In addition, * * * a Federal
Tax lien is being filed to protect the government’s
interest in this matter.[2]
1
When a taxpayer’s account is placed in uncollectible
status, the Commissioner does not attempt to enforce collection
against the taxpayer.
2
On Feb. 21, 1996, respondent filed a Notice of Federal Tax
Lien with the County Recorder for Orange County in Santa Ana,
California. The lien was released on Sept. 14, 1997, shortly
4
On Mar. 8, 1995, shortly after petitioners’ account had
been transferred to the Problem Resolution Office, respondent
served a notice of levy on First Interstate Bank of California.
The levy was released on Mar. 20, 1995, presumably because
petitioners’ case had been transferred to the Problem Resolution
Office, without the collection of any funds.
- 8 -
after petitioners’ 1993 liability was fully satisfied. See infra
“E”.
At this time we are closing your case out of the
Problems Resolution Program and apologize for any
inconvenience we may have caused you.
Petitioners’ 1993 account remained in uncollectible status
until July 11, 1997.
D. Petitioners’ Efforts To Compromise Their 1993 Tax Liability
By virtue of section 7122(a), the Commissioner is authorized
to compromise a taxpayer’s tax liability. Pursuant to that
authority, the Commissioner has published directives regarding
offers in compromise.5 See Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), sec.
57(10)0 (Feb. 26, 1992) et seq. Form 656, Offer in Compromise,
is the form that respondent has designed for use by a taxpayer
who wishes to submit an offer in compromise.
When an offer in compromise is received from a taxpayer, a
determination is made by an offer technician whether the offer is
“processable”. IRM, sec. 57(10)9.1(1) (Feb. 26, 1992). An offer
that is processable is assigned to a collection officer,
typically a revenue officer, for investigation and evaluation.
An offer that is “unprocessable” is returned to the taxpayer.
5
We note that the enactment of sec. 7122(c), relating to
the evaluation of offers in compromise, because it applies to
offers in compromise submitted after July 22, 1998, does not
apply in this case. The same is true of the temporary
regulations published thereunder, which are applicable to offers
in compromise submitted on or after July 21, 1999, through July
19, 2002. See sec. 301.7122-1T(j), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 64 Fed. Reg. 39027 (July 21, 1999).
- 9 -
IRM, sec. 57(10)9.1(1)-(2) (Feb. 26, 1992).
An offer is unprocessable if: (1) The taxpayer is not
identified; (2) the liabilities to be compromised are not
identified; (3) no amount is offered; (4) appropriate signatures
are not present; (5) financial statement is not provided; (6) the
offer does not reasonably reflect net equity in assets on Forms
433-A and 433-B and amounts recoverable from future income
sources, as reflected on financial statements;6 (7) an obsolete
Form 656 is used; or (8) the taxpayer alters the terms on Form
656. IRM, sec. 57(10)9.1(3) (Feb. 26, 1992).
1. Petitioners’ First Offer in Compromise
On September 19, 1994, petitioners submitted Form 656,
offering to compromise their 1993 tax liability for $5,000 on the
ground of doubt as to collectibility. Petitioners submitted
Forms 433-A and 433-B in support of their offer.
By letter dated December 20, 1994, respondent advised
6
However, the Internal Revenue Manual cautions:
judgment should be exercised when deciding whether to
return an offer as unprocessable for this reason alone.
It may be desirable to receive an offer into inventory
which does not technically meet this criterion. This
would apply if the amount offered is close enough to
the sum of net equity from Forms 433-A and 433-B, and
amounts recoverable from future income sources that
successful negotiation with the taxpayer could be
pursued.
IRM, sec. 57(10)9.1(3)(f) (Feb. 26, 1992).
- 10 -
petitioners that their offer could not be considered because “The
financial information you provided shows you have sufficient
equity and/or income to pay the liability in full now or by an
installment agreement.”
By a second letter, also dated December 20, 1994, respondent
invited petitioners to attend a workshop on January 17, 1995,
regarding the preparation of offers in compromise. Petitioners
were informed:
The goal of this workshop is to assist you in
preparing an offer in compromise that can be processed
for further investigation by the Service. * * *
Attending the workshop does not guarantee acceptance of
your offer, but it will give you important information
and assistance.
Petitioner attended the workshop.
2. Petitioners’ Second, Third, and Fourth Offers in
Compromise
On February 14, 1995, respondent received a second offer in
compromise from petitioners. On March 22, 1995, respondent
mailed a letter to petitioners informing them that their second
offer could not be processed.
On April 26, 1995, respondent received a third offer in
compromise from petitioners. On May 31, 1995, respondent mailed
a letter to petitioners informing them that their third offer
could not be processed.
On July 12, 1995, respondent received a fourth offer in
compromise from petitioners. On August 10, 1995, respondent
- 11 -
mailed a letter to petitioners informing them that their fourth
offer could not be processed.
3. Petitioners’ Fifth Offer in Compromise
On August 24, 1995, respondent received a fifth offer in
compromise from petitioners. On September 26, 1995, respondent
mailed a letter to petitioners informing them that their fifth
offer could not be processed for a variety of reasons, including
the following:
You didn’t correctly identify the liability(s)
that you want to compromise. Please see Form 656, and
refer to page 6, “How to Complete Form 656", item 4.
You didn’t attach Form 433A, Collection
Information Statement for Individuals and/or Form 433B,
Collection Information Statement for Businesses.
Please fill out a new 433A, the financial
information is over a year old. If your wife still
owns a business you will need a 433B also. Your tax
liability for 1994 must also be listed on the Form 656.
4. Petitioners’ Sixth Offer in Compromise
On October 4, 1995, respondent received a sixth offer in
compromise from petitioners. On November 1, 1995, respondent
mailed a letter to petitioners informing them that their sixth
offer could not be processed for the following reason:
The amount you offered doesn’t equal or exceed the
minimum offer as described on Form 656, page 5, “How to
Figure an Acceptable Offer”. You must offer an amount
which equals or exceeds the sum of (a) the amount shown
on line 30, Form 433-A, Collection Information
Statement for Individuals and/or line 27 column D, Form
433-B, Collection Information Statement for Businesses
- 12 -
and (b) the amount we could collect from your present
and future income as shown on page 4 of the Collection
Information Statement.
5. Petitioners’ Seventh Offer in Compromise
On November 20, 1995, respondent received a seventh offer in
compromise from petitioners. Respondent determined that
petitioners’ seventh offer could be processed and so advised
petitioners by letter dated January 9, 1996.
a. Investigation of the Seventh Offer
The investigator assigned to review and evaluate
petitioners’ offer was Revenue Officer Dewey Marine (Mr. Marine).
On May 9, 1996, Mr. Marine requested additional information from
petitioners in order to determine whether the amount of their
offer ($16,200) was adequate. Petitioners did not provide the
requested additional information within the specified time
period.
b. Rejection of the Seventh Offer
By letter dated May 31, 1996, respondent rejected
petitioners’ seventh offer because “you haven’t given us
enough information to determine if the amount of your offer is
adequate.”
c. Reconsideration of the Seventh Offer
By letter dated June 6, 1996, petitioner provided the
additional information previously requested and asked Mr. Marine
- 13 -
to reconsider petitioners’ seventh offer. Mr. Marine agreed to
do so.
On February 12, 1997, Mr. Marine rejected petitioners’
seventh offer on the ground that the amount of the offer was
inadequate. In this regard, Mr. Marine determined that
petitioners could afford to pay more, at least for offer in
compromise purposes, than what they had offered to pay. Mr.
Marine based this conclusion on his determination of the
differential between petitioners’ monthly income and petitioners’
necessary living expenses. In determining petitioners’ necessary
living expenses, Mr. Marine considered, inter alia, costs for
housing and utilities, educational costs for petitioners’
children, and costs for life insurance.
Mr. Marine determined costs for housing and utilities by
reference to “local standards” that were developed by
respondent’s National Office, based on data provided by the
Census and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and published in the
Internal Revenue Manual on November 2, 1995. IRM, sec.
5323.433(3)(a). Because petitioners’ actual costs for housing
and utilities exceeded the maximum allowance set forth in the
local standards for Orange County, California, Mr. Marine
utilized the local standards.7
7
In discussing the purpose behind the local standards,
Internal Revenue Manual, sec. 5323.433(3)(a)(1)-(3) (Nov. 2,
(continued...)
- 14 -
Mr. Marine also determined that certain “life-style choices”
made by petitioners, namely, petitioners’ purchase of whole life
insurance rather than less costly term insurance and petitioners’
decision to send their children to private rather than public
school, gave rise to increased expenses that could not be
considered in determining petitioners’ necessary living expenses
for offer in compromise purposes.
d. The Final Exchange of Correspondence
Petitioner was advised that the seventh offer had been
rejected in a telephone call initiated by Mr. Marine on February
12, 1997. Petitioner was also advised of the bases on which the
offer had been rejected, specifically including Mr. Marine’s
application of the local standards for housing and utilities.
Prior to this conversation, petitioner had not been aware of the
local standards.
7
(...continued)
1995) provides in part as follows:
The housing and utilities standard will provide the
basis for determining whether a taxpayer will be
required to pay the Service an amount equal to
excessive or not-allowable housing expenses. When
deciding whether a taxpayer should be required to pay
the Service an amount equal to excessive or not-
allowable housing expenses, consider:
(1) the increased cost of transportation to work
and school which would result from moving to lower-cost
housing;
(2) the tax consequences which would result from
selling a home. * * * ; and
(3) the cost of moving to a new residence.
- 15 -
On February 14, 1997, petitioner faxed Mr. Marine a letter
dated February 13, 1997. The letter acknowledged:
The rejection of my offer is based largely upon the
surplus between my living expenses as you have
calculated them and my current monthly income. A
significant part of that evaluation involves the
government-imposed housing expense limit of $1500.00[1]
per month, which as you indicated is in reality quite
low.
1
Actually, $1,568.
The letter also proposed that petitioners’ outstanding liability
“be capped at the original amount of the remaining tax balance,
$29,600,8 payable in 60 equal monthly payments of $500.00".
By letter dated February 18, 1997, Mr. Marine advised
petitioner that his proposal to “cap” petitioners’ outstanding
liability could not be honored because of the statutory
requirement that “interest and penalty be collected on delinquent
liabilities.” The letter concluded as follows:
As we discussed in our recent telephone conversation,
your ability to make payments (based on Offer in
Compromise criteria) is the major stumbling block in
the consideration of your offer. Your “life-style
choices”, although commendable, on the expenditure of
your available funds will always be a deterrent.
The offer program is meant for those who truly do not
have the assets or ability to pay. Clearly, this is
not the case with you.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free
to contact me. Perhaps an installment agreement can be
made with the office closest to you.
8
Actually, $29,742. See supra p. 4.
- 16 -
E. Payment of Petitioners’ Tax Liability
By letter dated August 18, 1997, petitioners informed
respondent that they had obtained a loan to satisfy their
outstanding tax liability for 1993. Shortly thereafter, on
August 27, 1997, petitioners paid their liability in full.
F. Notice of Determination and Commencement of Litigation
By notice of determination dated May 9, 2000, respondent
disallowed, in full, petitioners’ request for abatement of
interest9 on the ground that “We found no ministerial errors or
delays on the part of the Internal Revenue Service that warrant
abatement of interest in your case.”
On November 6, 2000, petitioners commenced an action in this
Court by filing a petition, pursuant to section 6404(i) and Rules
280-284, for review of respondent’s failure to abate interest
with respect to the taxable years 1993.10
OPINION
In general, interest on an underpayment of income tax begins
9
The evidentiary record does not include a copy of
petitioners’ request for abatement.
10
In pertinent part, sec. 6404(i) provides that “The Tax
Court shall have jurisdiction over any action brought by a
taxpayer who meets the requirements referred to in sec.
7430(c)(4)(A)(ii) to determine whether the Secretary’s failure to
abate interest under this section was an abuse of discretion, and
may order an abatement, if such action is brought within 180 days
after the date of the mailing of the Secretary’s final
determination not to abate such interest.” Petitioners meet the
net worth requirements of sec. 7430(c)(4)(A)(ii), and their
action was timely commenced. See sec. 7502(a).
- 17 -
to accrue on the due date of the return for such tax and
continues to accrue, compounding daily, until payment is made.
See secs. 6601(a), 6622(a).
This Court may order an abatement of interest only if there
is an abuse of discretion by the Commissioner in failing to abate
interest. See sec. 6404(i), formerly sec. 6404(g). In order to
demonstrate an abuse of discretion, a taxpayer must prove that
the Commissioner exercised his discretion arbitrarily,
capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law. See Rule
142(a); Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 149 (1999); Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
The Commissioner has the authority to abate, in whole or in
part, an assessment of interest on a payment of income tax to the
extent that an error or delay in such payment is attributable to
an officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
acting in his or her official capacity, being erroneous or
dilatory in performing a ministerial act. See sec.
6404(e)(1)(B).11 An error or delay by the Commissioner can be
taken into account only: (1) If it occurs after the Commissioner
11
Sec. 6404(e) was amended in 1996 by TBOR 2 sec. 301, 110
Stat. 1457 (1996), to permit the Commissioner to abate interest
with respect to an “unreasonable” error or delay resulting from
“managerial” or ministerial acts. The amendment applies to
interest accruing with respect to deficiencies or payments for
taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996; accordingly, the
amendment is inapplicable in the present case. See Woodral v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 25 n.8 (1999).
- 18 -
has contacted the taxpayer in writing with respect to the payment
and (2) if no significant aspect of the error or delay is
attributable to the taxpayer. See sec. 6404(e)(1); Krugman v.
Commissioner, 112 T.C. 230, 239 (1999); Nerad v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-376.
Congress did not intend for section 6404(e) to be used
routinely. Accordingly, we order abatement only “where failure
to abate interest would be widely perceived as grossly unfair.”
In order for petitioners to prevail, there must be an error
or delay in payment that is attributable to respondent’s being
erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act.12 A
“ministerial act” does not involve the exercise of judgment or
discretion. Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). Rather, a ministerial
act means a procedural or mechanical act that occurs during the
processing of a taxpayer’s case after all prerequisites to the
act, such as conferences and review by supervisors, have taken
place. See id. Examples of ministerial acts are provided in the
regulations. See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(2), Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). In contrast, a
decision concerning the proper application of Federal tax law, or
12
Further, an abatement of interest “only applies to the
period of time attributable to the failure to perform the
ministerial act.” H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.
(Vol. 3) 1, 208.
- 19 -
other applicable Federal or State law, is not a ministerial act.
See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
supra. The mere passage of time does not establish error or
delay in performing a ministerial act. Scott v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2000-369; Hawksley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-
354.
In their petition, petitioners request that “all interest
associated with this tax year” be abated.13 However, at trial
and on brief, petitioners narrowed the scope of their request,
identifying a specific period of time over which interest should
be abated; namely, the period from the date on which the first
offer in compromise was submitted (September 19, 1994) to the
date on which petitioners first learned of the local standards
for housing and utilities (February 12, 1997). We observe that
the September 19, 1994, date is after the date on which
respondent first contacted petitioners in writing with respect to
their unpaid tax liability for 1993. See sec. 6404(e)(1).
13
Sec. 6404(e) requires not only that a taxpayer identify
an error or delay caused by a ministerial act on the
Commissioner’s part, but also identify a specific period of time
over which interest should be abated as a result of such error or
delay. See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220. In the
petition, petitioners did not focus on this correlation between
the error or delay attributable to a ministerial act on
respondent’s part and a specific period of time; rather,
petitioners essentially requested that all interest with respect
to the taxable year 1993 be abated. Such request is, in effect,
a request for an exemption from interest, rather than a request
for an abatement of interest. However, the scope of such request
is beyond that contemplated by the statute. See id.
- 20 -
We turn now to petitioners’ contentions, as best we
understand them, in support of their argument that interest
should be abated for the period from September 19, 1994, to
February 12, 1997.
Petitioners contend that application of the local standards
for housing and utilities to a taxpayer’s offer in compromise is
a ministerial act that does not require the exercise of
discretion and that respondent committed a “ministerial error” by
failing to apply the local standards to petitioners until they
submitted their seventh offer. We disagree for several reasons.
First, we are not convinced that the premise of petitioners’
contention is correct. Although application of the local
standards for housing and utilities is, in the first instance,
mechanical in nature, the revenue officer is nonetheless
authorized to decide whether a taxpayer should be required to pay
an amount equal to excessive or unallowable housing expenses or,
in contrast, whether the taxpayer should be allowed an amount in
excess of the local standard. In this regard, respondent
instructs each revenue officer to consider three specific factors
in making this determination.14
Second, the local standards for housing and utilities that
are in issue in this case were not published in the Internal
Revenue Manual until November 2, 1995. Petitioners’ first six
14
See supra note 7.
- 21 -
offers were all determined by respondent to be unprocessable
before that date. Accordingly, it would not have even been
possible for respondent’s agents to apply the local standards to
those six offers.
Third, even if respondent’s agents could have divined the
future publication of the local standards, respondent’s agents
would not have had the opportunity to apply them to petitioners’
first six offers because those offers were determined to be
unprocessable. In other words, those offers were never assigned
to a revenue officer for investigation and evaluation on their
merits.
Fourth, and most importantly, application of the local
standards was but one step in the process of investigating and
evaluating petitioners’ offer in compromise, a process that
repeatedly called for the exercise of judgment and discretion on
the part of the revenue officer. In contrast, a ministerial act
does not involve the exercise of judgment or discretion. Sec.
301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra. We
reject petitioners' attempt to dissect a unitary process into a
series of unrelated and independent steps.
Petitioners also contend that respondent erred by not
informing them of the local standards for housing and utilities
- 22 -
until February 12, 1997.15 To the extent that petitioners seek
to imply that they would have, and could have, paid their
outstanding liability any earlier than August 27, 1997, had they
known that their efforts to compromise such liability would
ultimately prove to be unsuccessful, we reject such implication
because it is unsupported by the record. See Hawksley v.
Commissioner, supra. Indeed, when asked by the Court at trial
what petitioners would have done differently had they known about
the local standards at an earlier date, petitioner stated that he
was not aware of any option other than to have sold his home.
The candidness of this statement is borne out by the fact that
petitioners did not make a single payment of tax after filing
their return until August 27, 1997, and by the fact that
petitioners’ account was in uncollectible status for much of the
time that is relevant to this case.
In conclusion, the record does not reveal any error or delay
in payment of petitioners’ 1993 tax liability that is
attributable to respondent’s being erroneous or dilatory in
performing a ministerial act. Accordingly, we hold that
respondent did not abuse his discretion in refusing to abate
interest.
15
Implicit in petitioners’ contention is the notion that
respondent is under a duty to inform a taxpayer of the local
standards and that the fulfillment of such duty is a ministerial
act. We need not, however, decide either matter.
- 23 -
In order to give effect to our disposition of the disputed
issue,
Decision will be entered
for respondent.