- 8 -
date the revenue agent's report was sent to petitioner). In
short, the disputed period encompasses the criminal investigation
and criminal prosecution. The record does not show any
dereliction of a specific ministerial act during the disputed
period.
Petitioner argues that the delay during that period was the
result of a delay by employees of the Internal Revenue Service,
acting in their official capacity, in performing ministerial
acts. See sec. 6404(e)(1)(A). Respondent contends that the
delay was not the result of a ministerial act, and, therefore,
section 6404(e)(1)(A) does not apply. We agree with respondent.
The Internal Revenue Code does not define a ministerial act.
The report of the Senate Finance Committee accompanying the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, states:
The committee does not intend that this provision will be
used routinely to avoid payment of interest; rather, it
intends that the provision be utilized in instances where
failure to abate interest would be widely perceived as
grossly unfair. The interest abatement only applies to the
period of time attributable to the failure to perform the
ministerial act.
* * * * * * *
The committee intends that the term "ministerial act"
be limited to nondiscretionary acts where all of the
preliminary prerequisites, such as conferencing and review
by supervisors, have taken place. Thus, a ministerial act
is a procedural action, not a decision in a substantive area
of tax law. For example, a delay in the issuance of a
statutory notice of deficiency after the IRS and the
taxpayer have completed efforts to resolve the matter could
be grounds for abatement of interest. The IRS may define a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011