- 9 -
respondent’s examination to other years, third-party summonses
made necessary by petitioner’s difficulties in supplying
documentation, respondent’s suspicion of civil fraud, and the
reopening of the examination at petitioner’s request after it was
settled in 1992. None of those actions, which extended the time
of the examination, involve ministerial acts by respondent. See,
e.g., Taylor v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 206 (1999) (the
Commissioner's decision not to proceed with civil case during
criminal fraud investigation and prosecution was not a
ministerial act).
Petitioner points to a misaddressed letter from respondent
to one of petitioner’s representatives as evidence of an error in
performing a ministerial act. There was no error by respondent;
the letter was mailed to an incorrect address provided by
petitioner’s representative to respondent. The letter was
remailed once respondent determined the correct address.
Since petitioner has not established any erroneous or
dilatory ministerial acts, giving rise to the assessment of
interest, during the relevant timeframes, we conclude that
respondent’s failure to abate interest was not an abuse of his
discretion.
Decision will be entered
for respondent.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Last modified: May 25, 2011