- 23 -
naked allegation, that an inventory was not taken. See Tokarski
v. Commissioner, 87 T.C. 74, 77 (1986) (the Court is not required
to accept the self-serving and unsupported testimony of a
taxpayer as gospel). Further, although petitioner might not have
received “notice on that”, there is no evidence that such notice
was not provided.
The true crux of petitioner’s contention is that respondent
lost part of his tax records and returned only the balance.
To date, the Court has not had occasion to decide whether
the loss of a taxpayer’s records is a ministerial act within the
meaning of section 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987).17 However, we need
not decide this legal issue for two reasons: First, because the
factual predicate for petitioner’s contention has not been
established; and second, because a significant aspect of any
error or delay by respondent is attributable to petitioner.
First, petitioner claims that respondent lost part of his
tax records. However, petitioner was unable to describe exactly
17 We note that the final regulations under section 6404
define a managerial act as “an administrative act that occurs
during the processing of a taxpayer’s case involving the
temporary or permanent loss of records or the exercise of
judgment or discretion relating to management of personnel.” See
sec. 301.6404-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs.; see also H. Rept.
104-506, at 27 (1996), 1996-3 C.B. 49, 75. We note further that
sec. 301.6404-2(b)(1), Proced. & Admin. Regs., is generally
applicable only to interest accruing with respect to deficiencies
for taxable years beginning after July 30, 1996.
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