- 8 -
Furthermore, even if the amended section 6404(e) were
applicable, we seriously doubt whether under these circumstances
there was an “unreasonable error” in not sending the file to New
Orleans. The initial CP-2000 letter was issued from the Internal
Revenue Service Center in Chamblee, Georgia, and we would not
find that, by not sending petitioner’s file to New Orleans,
respondent unreasonably erred in performing a ministerial or
managerial act. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate how or why
that inaction would be unreasonable.
Finally, it should be noted that we are by no means
convinced that any delay, to which the accrued interest would be
attributable, was due to respondent’s action. Petitioner knew
his wife had assets inherited from her parents, but, when
preparing the tax return, he never bothered to determine what
income she had received from those assets. After the initial CP-
2000 letter from respondent, petitioner knew precisely what Legg
Mason had reported to respondent. Petitioner testified initially
that he knew he owed the tax in September 1998, and later he
changed his testimony. His second version was that he did not
know until the file was sent to New Orleans in April or May of
2000. But he had contacted Legg Mason in August 1998. His later
explanation that he did not know what information respondent had
before the file was sent to New Orleans has a decidedly hollow
ring. Realistically, the accrued interest was due to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011