- 8 -
were not ministerial acts within the meaning of section 6404(e).
See Taylor v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 206 (1999); Lee v.
Commissioner, supra.
Furthermore, section 6404(e) applies “only if no significant
aspect of such error or delay can be attributed to the taxpayer
involved.” As we view the matter, petitioner’s conduct, more so
than respondent’s, resulted in the length of time that the
deficiency cases were pending before this Court. Petitioner
could have settled the deficiency cases within 1 year after the
second case was filed. Instead, he waited approximately 7 years
to do so. Mr. Taylor (petitioner’s attorney in the deficiency
cases) testified that at the time he did not understand
respondent’s settlement offer and the delay in accepting it was
due to respondent’s failure, or refusal, to explain it to him.
Mr. Taylor’s explanation for the delay is less than compelling
considering his testimony long after the fact that, in his
opinion, petitioner should not have accepted respondent’s offer
because of the weaknesses in respondent’s positions in the
deficiency cases. Nevertheless, even if respondent had some
obligation to explain the settlement proposal to petitioner’s
attorney in the deficiency cases, an obligation assumed by
petitioner but unsupported by any authority, and even if
respondent failed to do so, respondent’s failure does not
constitute a ministerial act.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011