- 8 -
some error or delay of an employee in performing a ministerial
act but also that such error or delay occurred after the taxpayer
was first contacted in writing about the deficiency and before
the interest was assessed. Petitioner has not made that
preliminary showing for any of the years here in question.5
Petitioner’s brief contains a statement of facts that
reiterates the stipulation. Petitioner has failed to establish
concrete incidences of error or delay in performing ministerial
acts that gave rise to any assessment of interest. Petitioner
argues that the length of time from the start of respondent’s
examination of 1985 until the conclusion of respondent’s
examination of 1985, 1986, and 1987 automatically establishes
that there was an erroneous or dilatory ministerial act or acts.
We disagree. See Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145, 150 (1999)
("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 by
petitioner's case was largely a function of the expansion of
5 For each of the taxable years in question, the relevant
periods during which petitioner must show error or delay in
performing a ministerial act (i.e., the period from first written
contact to assessment of the interest) are as follows:
Taxable Year Period
1985 7/22/86 to 3/19/92
1986 11/01/88 to 3/19/92
1987 6/13/88 to 4/05/93
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011