- 11 -
Petitioners fail to identify any ministerial act performed by
respondent which delayed the resolution of their case. As
discussed above, respondent has discretion to abate interest for
an error or delay resulting only from a ministerial act performed
by his employees. By definition, a ministerial act is one that
is procedural or mechanical; it does not involve the exercise of
judgment or discretion. Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145
(1999). Respondent’s decision of how and when to work on a case,
based on an evaluation of his entire caseload and his workload
priorities, is not a ministerial act. Strang v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 2001-104; Leffert v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-23.
Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that any delay was due to
a ministerial act.
In fact, the record demonstrates that respondent performed
substantial work on petitioners’ case during this second period.
After petitioners’ case was processed by respondent’s appellate
division, it was returned to the audit branch. Petitioners
requested a transfer of their case to a different Revenue agent.
Respondent capitulated and on November 6, 1997, he transferred
the case to Agent Clarke. On December 10, 1997, Agent Clarke
sent petitioners a letter detailing the return of the case from
the Appeals Division and its assignment to him.9 On January 21,
9The letter requested petitioners to contact Agent Clarke to
schedule a conference regarding their case, identifying the NOL
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011