- 12 -
November 30, 1994. Petitioners contend that there were “grossly
unfair” delays by respondent during this time; however, the brief
does not identify any actions on respondent’s part that would
constitute “ministerial acts” during this time. It appears to us
that petitioners consider themselves entitled to the relief
sought based merely upon the time that transpired from the date
the examination began until the date the stipulated decision
document was entered by this Court. The mere passage of time,
however, in and of itself does not suggest an unreasonable delay
or error caused by a ministerial act on respondent’s part. See
Cosgriff v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-241 (citing Lee v.
Commissioner, supra at 150).
Nevertheless, we have examined the 5-year span starting from
respondent’s first contact with petitioners regarding the
examination of their 1989 and 1990 returns on June 6, 1991,4
until the deficiency proceeding was concluded by the entry of a
stipulated decision document on April 23, 1996. In doing so, we
find no evidence of any specific ministerial act on respondent’s
part that caused an unreasonable delay in the progress of the
examination through the deficiency proceeding. The length of
4 Under section 6404(e), a taxpayer is entitled to abatement
of assessed interest on a deficiency only for any period starting
“after the Internal Revenue Service has contacted the taxpayer in
writing with respect to such deficiency”. Sec. 6404(e)(1).
Accordingly, interest accrued on petitioners’ deficiency prior to
June 6, 1991, is not abatable. See sec. 6404(e).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011