Thomas Edward Vanstone - Page 8

                                        - 8 -                                         
          6511(b)(2)(A), this would not be grounds for abatement of                   
          interest under section 6404.  Petitioner argues that the                    
          crediting was in error because the 1980 and 1981 deficiencies,              
          and corresponding interest calculations, were in error.  However,           
          we infer that respondent was applying Federal tax law with                  
          respect to the determination of the deficiencies and interest               
          thereon, and with respect to the decision concerning the                    
          applicable period of limitations.  Respondent’s decisions                   
          concerning the proper application of Federal tax law are not                
          ministerial acts.  Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. &              
          Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30162, 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987).                    
               The only remaining relevant assertion by petitioner with               
          respect to the 1982 taxable year is the following, contained in             
          the petition:                                                               
                    The Secretary exhibited “unreasonable delay” in signing           
               a Decision Document (1982 tax year) on August 13, 1996 after           
               the Tax Matters Partner had signed the Decision Document               
               thirteen months earlier on July 6, 1995.                               
          This is the only assertion in which petitioner has made a                   
          correlation between a specific time period and an alleged error             
          or delay in the performance of a ministerial act.  See Berry v.             
          Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2001-323; Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C.            
          Memo. 2000-220.  However, there is no evidence in the record                
          supporting this assertion; even the dates the decision document             
          was signed have not been shown.  Such a naked assertion cannot be           
          the basis for finding an abuse of discretion.                               

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011