- 21 -
State 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 mere passage of time does not establish error or
delay in performing a ministerial act. See Cosgriff v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-241, (citing Lee v. Commissioner,
supra at 150).
For purposes of section 6404(e), an error or delay cannot be
considered for the period before April 24, 1989, because that is
the date on which respondent first contacted petitioner in
writing regarding the deficiency for 1986. See sec. 6404(e)(1);
Krugman v. Commissioner, supra; Nerad v. Commissioner, supra.
We turn now to petitioner’s three contentions regarding why
interest should be abated.
A. Petitioner’s First Contention
First, petitioner contends that respondent erroneously
determined petitioner’s income tax liabilities for 1985 and 1986.
However, regardless of whether respondent correctly or
incorrectly determined petitioner’s income tax liabilities for
those years, it is clear that a decision concerning the proper
application of Federal tax law, or other Federal or State law, is
not a ministerial act. See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary
Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra; Cosgriff v. Commissioner, supra.
Petitioner’s first contention is therefore without merit.
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011