- 7 -
Revenue Service Center in Chamblee, Georgia, to respondent’s
offices in New Orleans, Louisiana) to the date of payment. To
fit within the ambit of section 6404(e), petitioner must prove
that the accrual of interest during that period was the result of
a delay by employees of the Internal Revenue Service, acting in
their official capacity, in performing ministerial acts. See
sec. 6404(e)(1)(A). Respondent contends that the delay, if
indeed there was any delay, was not the result of a ministerial
act, and, therefore, section 6404(e)(1)(A) does not apply.
At the hearing, the following exchange occurred:
THE COURT: Where is the ministerial act that you
complain about?
THE WITNESS [petitioner]: It’s not a ministerial act.
It’s an error, and it’s primarily a delay in transporting
this case from Atlanta–-whatever–-to New Orleans.
We disagree with petitioner that there was an error or delay by
an employee of the Internal Revenue Service in performing a
ministerial act within the meaning of section 6404(e).
Congress did amend section 6404(e) in 1996 to permit
abatement of interest for “unreasonable” error and delay in
performing a “ministerial or managerial” act. Taxpayer Bill of
Rights 2 (TBOR 2), Pub. L. 104-168, sec. 301(a)(1) and (2), 110
Stat. 1457 (1996). That standard, however, applies to tax years
beginning after July 30, 1996. Id. subsec. (c). Petitioner’s
taxable year here began January 1, 1996, and the TBOR 2 amendment
does not apply.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011