T.C. Summary Opinion 2005-27
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
DONALD W. AND KATHRYN B. CONNER, Petitioners v. COMMISSIONER OF
INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 11617-03S. Filed March 16, 2005.
Donald W. and Kathryn B. Conner, pro sese.
Lauren Epstein, for respondent.
PANUTHOS, Chief Special Trial Judge: This case was heard
pursuant to the provisions of sections 6330(d) and 7463.1 The
decision to be entered is not reviewable by any other court, and
this opinion should not be cited as authority.
Respondent issued petitioners a Notice of Determination
Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code, as amended.
- 2 -
(notice of determination). The issues for decision are: (1)
Whether respondent abused his discretion in failing to abate
interest, and (2) whether respondent improperly refused to abate
assessments for additions to tax for failure to file under
section 6651(a)(1) and failure to pay under section 6651(a)(2).
Background
Some of the facts have been stipulated, and they are so
found. Petitioners resided in Tampa, Florida, at the time the
petition was filed.
Petitioners filed a 1997 Federal income tax return on March
1, 2001. The 1997 return reflected a tax due. There was no
remittance with the return. Respondent assessed the tax as well
as interest and additions to tax.
On May 1, 2002, respondent received an offer in compromise
(OIC) submitted by petitioners. The OIC was returned to
petitioners on May 23, 2002, because respondent’s records
reflected that petitioners were not current in the filing of
quarterly employment tax returns. By cover letter dated June 27,
2002, petitioners resubmitted the OIC. Petitioners advised in
the letter that there was no payroll for their business, and
therefore no employment tax returns were due.
The OIC was rejected in an Internal Revenue Service letter
dated April 21, 2003. The letter advised petitioners that the
amount offered was less than the reasonable collection potential.
- 3 -
The letter detailed petitioners’ equity and future ability to pay
totaling $427,532. Petitioners offered $3,000 to pay a balance
due at that time of $7,961. The letter further noted that
petitioners’ special circumstances were considered, but they did
not warrant a decision to accept the offer.
Meanwhile, respondent issued to petitioners a notice of
intent to levy dated July 12, 2002, for the 1997 taxable year.
Petitioners submitted a timely Form 12153, Request for a
Collection Due Process Hearing. Petitioners attached a statement
explaining their position. Petitioners asserted that they were
out of work and that Mrs. Conner was disabled. Petitioners
asserted that they were in very poor financial condition. They
further asserted that the IRS had delayed resolution of their
case and asked that interest and “penalties”2 be abated.
Petitioners paid the balance due on May 14, 2003, after the
notice of demand for payment but prior to the issuance of the
notice of determination. Petitioners however seek an abatement
of interest and additions to tax.
On June 9, 2003, the Appeals Office issued the notice of
determination that petitioners are not entitled to an abatement
of interest or additions to tax. A timely petition was filed.
2
The parties have each referred to “penalties”; however we
understand the parties’ reference to mean the additions to tax
under sec. 6651(a)(1) and (2).
- 4 -
Discussion
This Court has jurisdiction under section 6330 to review the
Commissioner’s administrative determinations. Sec. 6330(d).
Where the validity of the underlying tax liability is not at
issue, we review the determination for abuse of discretion. Sego
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. 604, 610 (2000). Where the underlying
tax liability is in issue, we review de novo. Goza v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 176, 181 (2000).
Petitioners do not appear to argue that the failure of
respondent to accept the OIC was an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we need not, and do not, consider whether the
Appeals officer’s refusal to accept the OIC submitted by
petitioners was arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in
fact or law. See Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23
(1999). We do however consider the question of abatement of
interest and additions to tax.
A. Abatement of Interest
We have jurisdiction over petitioners’ request for abatement
of interest because the Court has jurisdiction to review the
Commissioner’s refusal to rebate interest under section 6404.
Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 340-341 (2000); Moore v.
Commissioner, 114 T.C. 171, 175 (2000). This Court may order an
abatement of interest if the Commissioner abuses his discretion
in failing to abate interest. Sec. 6404(h)(1). The taxpayer
- 5 -
must show that the Commissioner exercised his discretion
arbitrarily, capriciously, or without sound basis in fact or law.
Woodral v. Commissioner, supra at 23.
As applicable for the year in issue, section 6404(e) permits
the Commissioner to abate interest with respect to any
“unreasonable” error or delay resulting from a ministerial or
managerial act.3 The regulations define a ministerial act as a
“procedural or mechanical act that does not involve the exercise
of judgment or discretion, and 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.” Sec.
301.6404-2(b)(2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. The regulations define
a managerial act as “an administrative act that occurs during the
processing of a taxpayer’s case involving the temporary or
permanent loss of records or the exercise of judgment or
discretion relating to management of personnel.” Sec. 301.6404-
2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.
Petitioners appear to assert that there was delay in
processing the OIC. In particular, petitioners assert that delay
resulted when the OIC was returned to them by the IRS for reasons
3
Sec. 6404(h), formerly sec. 6404(g), is applicable to
requests for abatement after July 30, 1996. Taxpayer Bill of
Rights 2 (TBOR 2), Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 302, 110 Stat. 1457
(1996). Further, sec. 301(a)(1) and (2) of TBOR 2 permits
abatement of interest with respect to unreasonable error or delay
from “managerial” acts, effective for interest accruing with
respect to tax years beginning after July 30, 1996.
- 6 -
that petitioners were not current in filing quarterly employment
tax returns. Respondent later acknowledged that petitioners were
not required to file these returns after being provided with
information by petitioners.
We do not conclude that respondent abused his discretion in
denying interest abatement. Approximately 3 weeks after
petitioners submitted the OIC, May 1 to May 23, 2002, the IRS
returned the OIC, believing that petitioners were required to
file quarterly employment tax returns and that therefore they
were not current in their filing obligations. In June 2002,
petitioners provided the IRS with information revealing that they
were not required to file and resubmitted the OIC. Respondent
then proceeded to consider the OIC and ultimately rejected the
OIC by letter dated April 21, 2003, approximately 10 months after
the offer was resubmitted. As indicated, the revenue officer
considering the OIC concluded that petitioners had net equity in
assets plus future ability to pay totaling $427,532. Petitioners
had offered $3,000 to pay the balance then due of $7,961. While
we are aware that the process of consideration of petitioners’
OIC did not proceed at a pace that petitioners might have liked,
we do not conclude that there was delay resulting from a
ministerial or managerial act. This is particularly the case
where petitioners do not dispute the conclusions set forth in the
rejection of the OIC.
- 7 -
B. Additions to Tax
The income tax assessment against petitioners includes
additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2). Petitioners
did not receive a notice of deficiency or otherwise have an
opportunity to dispute the additions to tax relating to their
income liabilities; therefore, they can challenge them during the
section 6330 proceeding. Sec. 6330(c)(2)(B); see Montgomery v.
Commissioner, 122 T.C. 1, 7 (2004). We review de novo
respondent’s determination with respect to these additions to
tax. Goza v. Commissioner, supra at 181-182.
Section 6651(a)(1) imposes an addition to tax of 5 percent
per month of the amount of tax required to be shown on the
return, not to exceed 25 percent, for failure to timely file a
return. Section 6651(a)(2) imposes an addition to tax for
failure to pay timely the amount shown as tax in any return.
The addition under section 6651(a)(2) is in an amount of 0.5
percent of the amount of such tax for each month or fraction
thereof that the tax remains unpaid, not to exceed 25 percent in
the aggregate. Under section 6651(c)(1) the 5 percent for each
additional month imposed by section 6651(a)(1) is reduced by the
amount of the addition to tax under section 6651(a)(2) to 4.5
percent for any month in which both additions are imposed. The
additions to tax under section 6651(a)(1) and (2) are imposed
- 8 -
unless the taxpayer establishes that the failure was due to
reasonable cause and not willful neglect.4
Petitioners did not present any evidence as to the reasons
for their failure to timely file and pay the tax that was due.
Under such circumstances we would have no basis to conclude that
the failure to file and failure to pay were due to reasonable
cause and not due to willful neglect. We conclude that there is
no basis to abate the additions to tax under these circumstances.
Reviewed and adopted as the report of the Small Tax Case
Division.
To give effect to the foregoing,
An appropriate decision will
be entered for respondent.
4
The parties have not presented argument as to the
application of sec. 7491. The Commissioner bears the burden of
production in any Court proceeding with respect to the liability
for any addition to tax. Sec. 7491. To meet this burden, the
Commissioner must come forward with sufficient evidence
indicating that it is appropriate to impose the relevant penalty
or addition to tax. Higbee v. Commissioner, 116 T.C. 438, 446
(2001). The taxpayer bears the burden of proof that the
Commissioner’s determination is incorrect and that there was
reasonable cause. Id. at 446-447.
Assuming, without deciding, that respondent has the burden
of production, see Goodwin v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-289;
Joye v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-14, there is no question
but that petitioners were required to file a tax return and
failed to file the 1997 tax return until Mar. 1, 2001. Further,
petitioners did not remit payment prior to, or with, the filing
of the delinquent return.