Nina H. Pettyjohn - Page 18




                                       - 18 -                                         
          “errors or delay” on the part of respondent’s tax examiners.10              
               In order for petitioner to prevail, there must be an error             
          or delay in performing a ministerial act that is attributable to            
          respondent.11  A “ministerial act” does not involve the exercise            
          of judgment or discretion.  Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary               
          Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987).                 
          Rather, a ministerial act means a procedural or mechanical act              
          that occurs during the processing of a taxpayer’s case after all            
          prerequisites to the act, such as conferences and review by                 
          supervisors, have taken place.  See id.  Examples of ministerial            
          acts are provided in the regulations.  See sec. 301.6404-                   
          2T(b)(2), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163              
          (Aug. 13, 1987).  In contrast, a decision concerning the proper             
          application of Federal tax law, or other applicable Federal or              


               10  Sec. 6404(e) requires not only the identification of an            
          error or delay caused by a ministerial act on the Commissioner’s            
          part, but also identification of a specific period of time over             
          which interest should be abated as a result of that error or                
          delay.  See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220.  In the           
          present case, petitioner has not focused on this correlation                
          between the error or delay attributable to a ministerial act on             
          respondent’s part and a specific period of time; rather,                    
          petitioner is essentially requesting that all interest with                 
          respect to the deficiencies in income taxes for 1993, 1994, and             
          1995 be abated.  In effect, petitioner is requesting an exemption           
          from interest, rather than an abatement of interest.  However,              
          the scope of her request is beyond that contemplated by the                 
          statute.  See id.                                                           
               11  Further, an abatement of interest “only applies to the             
          period of time attributable to the failure to perform the                   
          ministerial act.”  H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B.              
          (Vol. 2) 1, 844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B.                
          (Vol. 3) 1, 208; see supra note 9.                                          




Page:  Previous  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011