- 48 -
authority to abate interest in petitioners’ case. Similarly,
there was no error or delay for the period April 25 (when Winkler
signed the settlement document), through May 2, 1995, when the
decision was entered by the Tax Court.
The remaining 3 months of the second period are more
complicated. Respondent’s two proffered explanations are not
helpful. The first explanation, dealing with taking cases out of
alphabetical order, related to the first period (ending October
26, 1994) and not to the second period. The second explanation,
dealing with uncertainty as to petitioners’ intent to settle,
evidently was resolved by Becker, not later than January 13,
1995, when he notified petitioners in writing that the proposed
settlement “has been approved.”
We consider first whether Winkler’s actions with respect to
the settlement of petitioners’ case constituted ministerial acts.
We have found that in 1993 arrangements were made to have
the Cincinnati office take on part of the work of settling
Barrister cases. About July 1993, Barrister cases were assigned
to Rowland and her Cincinnati office colleagues. For about the
first 6 months that the Cincinnati office processed Barrister
cases, proposed decision documents were sent to Winkler and Craig
for approval before the documents were sent to the taxpayers.
Thereafter, the Cincinnati office was deemed to be sufficiently
proficient at drafting these documents, so that that office sent
Page: Previous 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011