- 10 -
appeals conference, their claim is not supported by their actual
conduct as they made no attempt to schedule an earlier meeting.
Petitioners next contend that the Appeals officer took very
unreasonable legal positions when they met on January 24, 1994.
Petitioners claim they wished to settle the case at that meeting
but were unable to do so because the Appeals officer took
unreasonable positions. Petitioners did not have another meeting
with an IRS employee until their October 3, 1994, meeting, which
was suggested by respondent’s counsel.
A decision concerning the proper application of Federal tax
law is not a ministerial act. See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987). Petitioners had not provided respondent with any
documentary evidence relating to the adjustments to their 1989
and 1990 returns before the meeting on January 24, 1994. At that
meeting the revenue agent explained to petitioners the nature of
respondent’s determinations and allowed petitioners to present
their case. Based on petitioners’ presentation, the Appeals
officer was satisfied that respondent’s determinations were
correct. However, he agreed to take the case under further
advisement to allow petitioners to produce additional evidence to
support their claims. The Appeals officer’s analysis of
petitioners’ case clearly required discretion and judgment in
applying Federal tax law to the facts and circumstances of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011