- 19 -
other applicable Federal or 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.
In their petition, petitioners request that “all interest
associated with this tax year” be abated.13 However, at trial
and on brief, petitioners narrowed the scope of their request,
identifying a specific period of time over which interest should
be abated; namely, the period from the date on which the first
offer in compromise was submitted (September 19, 1994) to the
date on which petitioners first learned of the local standards
for housing and utilities (February 12, 1997). We observe that
the September 19, 1994, date is after the date on which
respondent first contacted petitioners in writing with respect to
their unpaid tax liability for 1993. See sec. 6404(e)(1).
13 Sec. 6404(e) requires not only that a taxpayer identify
an error or delay caused by a ministerial act on the
Commissioner’s part, but also identify a specific period of time
over which interest should be abated as a result of such error or
delay. See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220. In the
petition, petitioners did not focus on this correlation between
the error or delay attributable to a ministerial act on
respondent’s part and a specific period of time; rather,
petitioners essentially requested that all interest with respect
to the taxable year 1993 be abated. Such request is, in effect,
a request for an exemption from interest, rather than a request
for an abatement of interest. However, the scope of such request
is beyond that contemplated by the statute. See id.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011