Laurence L. and Patricia Jacobs - Page 16




                                       - 16 -                                         
          they spent time researching and interpreting the proper                     
          application of the law to the TLP case.  Decisions concerning the           
          proper application of Federal tax law are not ministerial acts.             
          See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,               
          supra.  Because the actions of Agents Dosil and McBrien in                  
          researching and interpreting the proper application of the law              
          are not ministerial acts, respondent's refusal to abate interest            
          that accrued while they were taking those actions was not an                
          abuse of discretion.                                                        
               Furthermore, we note the failure of the tax matters partner            
          and TLP's attorney timely to comply with respondent's requests              
          for TLP business and legal documents and the limited partners'              
          Schedules K-1.  Petitioners argue that, because respondent                  
          possessed all of the necessary Schedules K-1, the noncompliant              
          acts of the tax matters partner should not be the focus of the              
          inquiry.  The reason Agent McBrien asked for the K-1s, however,             
          was to expedite the examination process.  The failure to obtain             
          all of the Schedules K-1 for TLP and the time it took to obtain             
          the other business and legal documents extended the time                    
          necessary to complete the audit and contributed significantly to            
          any delay that occurred while the case was in examination.                  
          Accordingly, for the period April 1, 1985, through August 1987,             
          we hold that it was not an abuse of discretion for respondent to            
          refuse to abate interest.                                                   






Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011