- 10 -
relation to the taxes for other years as may be necessary to
redetermine the amount of a deficiency for a year before the
Court but has no jurisdiction to decide whether the tax for
another year has been overpaid or underpaid).
Petitioner cites no authority to support her claim that the
assessments of interest were excessive, erroneous, or illegal.
See sec. 6404(a). Nor does the evidence establish that the
interest was excessive in amount, assessed after the expiration
of the period of limitations properly applicable thereto, or
erroneously or illegally assessed. See In re Burns, 974 F.2d
1064, 1066 (9th Cir. 1992).
Petitioner has also failed to specify any ministerial acts
that were performed by an officer of the IRS in an erroneous or
dilatory manner. See sec. 6404(e). Rather, as we have already
discussed, petitioner’s principal claim (which we have rejected)
is that respondent’s officers erred by failing properly to credit
her account with payments and overpayments from subsequent years.
Regardless, neither respondent’s decision to apply an
overpayment to a particular year’s tax liability, nor the
determination to deny the earned income credit constitutes a
procedural or mechanical action where the exercise of judgment or
discretion is not required. See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011