- 10 -
Respondent mailed the notice of deficiency on March 24,
1994. Petitioners delivered a petition to the U.S. Embassy in
Mexico City on August 17, 1994. It was not an abuse of
discretion for respondent not to abate interest for the period
from March 25 to August 17, 1994, because respondent made no
error or delay in performing a ministerial act. See sec. 6404(e)
(flush language).
6. August 18, 1994, to September 30, 1996
Petitioners’ petition was received by the U.S. Embassy in
Mexico City on August 17, 1994, and by this Court on September 6,
1994. An unexplained delay in transferring a file is a
ministerial error. See, e.g., sec. 301.6404-2T(b), Example (1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987) (a delay in transferring a case, after transfer was
approved, is the result of a ministerial act). However, we do
not believe that the delay in the Tax Court’s receipt of the
petition affected the pace of settlement of the case, discussed
below, nor did it cause petitioners to delay the payment of
interest.
We received petitioners’ petition on September 6, 1994, and,
on October 21, 1994, we granted respondent's motion to dismiss
the petition for lack of jurisdiction because it was not timely
filed.
Between October 21, 1994, and February 1, 1995, Dietz asked
respondent to reconsider petitioners’ case, and Keenan obtained
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011