- 19 -
Respondent’s decision to grant or deny an immediate audit is not
a ministerial act; it is a managerial act involving the exercise
of discretion.
Petitioner has failed to allege any ministerial error or
delay by respondent that caused an increase in petitioner’s
interest obligation. Moreover, the evidence alleged by
petitioner is replete with acts by petitioner causing delay,
including his initial demand that the audit be delayed until he
completed his schooling, his demand that a subsequent audit be
delayed until he returned from vacation, his failure to pursue
review of respondent’s decisions for many months due to his busy
schedule, his unwillingness to listen to respondent’s positions
or to cooperate with respondent in an effort to accommodate his
requests, and his rude and insulting statements to respondent’s
customer service representatives (which are evidenced in the
customer service notes of petitioner’s conversations with
respondent’s customer service representatives, in petitioner’s
letters to respondent, and in the papers petitioner filed with
this Court). The record in this case shows clearly that a
significant aspect of the delay, if not all of the delay, in
finally determining the correct amount of petitioner’s
deficiencies is attributable to petitioner.
We find no error in respondent’s determination that
petitioner is not entitled to an abatement of interest in excess
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011