- 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