- 19 -
State law, is not a ministerial act. See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra. The mere passage of
time does not establish error or delay in performing a
ministerial act. Scott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-369;
Hawksley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-354.
For purposes of section 6404(e), an error or delay cannot be
considered, for each of the years in issue, for the period before
the following operative date, because such date is the date on
which respondent first contacted petitioner in writing concerning
an audit procedure for the particular year in issue:
Operative Date Taxable Year
July 19, 19961 1993
Aug. 9, 1996 1994
Oct. 4, 19961 1995
1The July 19, 1996 and October 4, 1996 dates are the dates
of the examination reports for the taxable years 1993 and 1995,
respectively.
See sec. 6404(e)(1); Krugman v. Commissioner, supra; Nerad v.
Commissioner, supra.
We turn now to petitioner’s contention regarding why
interest should be abated.
Petitioner contends that interest on the deficiencies in
income taxes for 1993, 1994, and 1995 is attributable to “errors
or delay” on respondent’s part in failing to examine her income
tax returns for 1988 through 1992 and alerting her to the fact
that there was no basis in law for her deductions for gifts to
family members. However, it is readily apparent that
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011