- 9 -
Petitioner alleges that respondent committed three ministerial
errors to which delay in payment of his 1980 tax may be
attributed.
A. Length of Time in Disposing of Case
Petitioner claims that the 11-year span from the issuance of
the notice of deficiency in 1984 until petitioner entered a
settlement agreement with respondent in 1995 constitutes a
ministerial error by respondent and warrants an abatement of
interest.
The mere passage of time in the litigation phase of a tax
dispute does not establish error or delay by the Commissioner in
performing a ministerial act. The length of time required to
resolve the GIG case was a result of the Government's litigation
strategy to dispose of the criminal indictments first and the
Court's disposition of the parties' procedural motions.
Respondent's decision on how to proceed in the litigation phase
of the case necessarily required the exercise of judgment and
thus cannot be a ministerial act. We, therefore, conclude that
the passage of 11 years in the litigation phase of the case at
bar is not attributable to error or delay in performing a
ministerial act.5
5 Additionally, we note that in the interests of justice
Federal courts commonly defer civil proceedings pending the
completion of parallel criminal prosecutions. See United States
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011