- 21 -
extent that any error or delay in payment is attributable to an
officer or employee of the IRS being erroneous or dilatory in
performing a ministerial act.” See Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C.
145, 148 (1999). A ministerial act, however, does not include “a
decision concerning the proper application of federal tax law (or
other federal or state law)”. Sec. 301.6404-2(b)(2), Proced. &
Admin. Regs.
Petitioner has not alleged a ministerial error within the
meaning of section 6404(e). Furthermore, the evidence does not
establish that respondent committed a ministerial error requiring
an abatement of interest.
Conclusion
For the reasons explained above, petitioner’s challenge to
his liability for the tax deficiency and additions to tax fails
to state a cognizable claim for relief. We hold that none of the
other grounds upon which petitioner relies, as stated in his
submissions to the Appeals officer, his petition to this Court,
and his arguments in response to respondent’s motion, constitutes
a basis upon which we can find that the Appeals officer’s
determination was an abuse of discretion. Because respondent’s
motion for partial summary judgment covers all the remaining
issues in the instant case, we treat it as a motion for full
summary judgment, which we now grant.
To the extent not herein discussed, we have considered
petitioner’s other arguments and find them to be without merit.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011