- 6 -
the exercise of respondent’s judgment. This act did not
constitute a ministerial act for purposes of section 6404(e)(1).
See Crawford v. Commissioner, supra; Gaudet v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2001-309 (respondent’s denial of a taxpayer’s request for
the transfer of his case to another office did not constitute an
error or delay committed by respondent in the performance of a
ministerial act); cf. sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(2), Example (1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13,
1987) (respondent’s failure to transfer a case to another office
after the requested transfer was approved constituted an error by
respondent in the performance of a ministerial act).
Advice allegedly given by respondent’s representatives to
Bishop’s tax matters partner as to the allowability of the loss
deductions and credits relating to Barrister would not constitute
a ministerial act for purposes of section 6404(e)(1). Oral or
written advice given by respondent to taxpayers regarding the
application of Federal tax law requires the exercise of judgment,
and does not constitute a ministerial act for purposes of section
6404(e)(1). Katz v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 329, 341 (2000);
Crawford v. Commissioner, supra. Also, there is no statute that
gives respondent a mandate to abate interest on tax deficiencies
in order to treat similarly situated taxpayers alike, including
where those deficiencies are a result of partnership level
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011