- 11 -
petitioners’ case. Therefore, his acts did not constitute a
ministerial act. Since there was no erroneous or dilatory
performance of a ministerial act, the Commissioner lacked the
authority to abate interest for this period.
Finally, petitioners claim that, after their October 3,
1994, meeting with the IRS agent, the Appeals officer and
respondent’s attorney also took unreasonable positions in
discussing settlement options and delayed in preparing for trial,
causing petitioners to have their case continued and to hire an
attorney to represent them. Again, 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). The agent, the Appeals officer,
and respondent’s attorney continually attempted to settle
petitioners’ case. The positions they took regarding the issues
in petitioners’ case were based on their application of Federal
tax law to the facts and circumstances surrounding petitioners’
case. These actions required the exercise of discretion and
judgment. Moreover, petitioners’ lack of cooperation and failure
to respond to IRS counsel’s requests for discovery necessitated
that respondent resort to this Court for an order compelling
petitioners to produce documentation and show cause why proposed
stipulations should not be accepted. Any delays caused by
petitioners’ decision to retain an attorney and to continue their
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011