- 12 -
and decision not to abate the interest.4 However, unlike the
situation in Jacobs, we need not merely speculate what happened
during the relevant period between January 1, 1992, and November
5, 1998. The record sufficiently supports respondent’s
determination that there were no ministerial acts which caused
errors or delays. The record reflects steady progress in
petitioners’ case from audit through final settlement.
Petitioners argue that respondent abused his discretion
because he has failed to show that the length of time it took to
settle petitioners’ case was due to anything but ministerial
errors or delays. Petitioners again rely on Jacobs in this
argument, contending that respondent has failed to show that an
IRS employee exercised judgment or discretion in (a) responding
to partners’ requests for settlement, and (b) prioritizing or
organizing the related partnership cases.
Although petitioners requested from respondent an abatement
of interest accruing from January 1, 1992, through November 5,
1998, the only specific subset of time in respect of which
petitioners request in their brief that we find an abuse of
discretion was the period “from 1990 through 1993". We assume
4 The language was more informative in that the
determination letter in the present case specifically stated that
no errors or delays relating to the performance of “ministerial
acts” could be found for the period in question, and it proceeded
to define the term “ministerial act” in accordance with the
applicable regulation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011