- 6 -
successful as far as getting a more reasonable adjustment” if the
case had been reviewed by a group manager.
Petitioner contends that the group manager’s failure to meet
with Fyffe to discuss the revenue agent’s proposed adjustments
constituted error in performing a ministerial act. In support of
this contention, petitioner relies on Internal Revenue Manual
section 4255.1(2)(b), which states:
If the taxpayer disagrees with the proposed
changes, either by letter or in person at the
originating office, the group manager, will on a
priority basis, and at his/her discretion, discuss the
disputed adjustments with the taxpayer in a further
attempt to resolve the issues and obtain the taxpayer’s
agreement. * * * [1 Audit, Internal Revenue Manual
(CCH), sec. 4255.1(2)(b), at 7709; emphasis added.]
This provision of the Internal Revenue Manual plainly
indicates that the group manager’s discussion of disputed
adjustments with the taxpayer is discretionary. Accordingly, the
nonoccurrence of such a discussion does not establish error in
performing a ministerial act.
In any event, we cannot assume that a meeting with the group
manager, if it had occurred, would have accelerated, rather than
protracted, resolution of petitioner’s tax controversy. It is
purely conjectural whether the group manager would have resolved
the disputed issue any more expeditiously than the Appeals
officer or any more to petitioner’s satisfaction; we cannot
assume that, even after meeting with the group manager,
petitioner would not have requested an Appeals conference, or
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011