- 10 -
19, 23 (1999). We now consider each of petitioners’ arguments in
turn.
A. Respondent’s Application of Federal Tax Law
Petitioners contend that respondent did not properly apply
“the law in regard to assessment of tax” when assessing
petitioners’ income tax liabilities and that respondent’s failure
to abate interest on this basis was an abuse of discretion.
Respondent’s decisions with respect to the application of Federal
tax law, however, are not ministerial acts. Sec. 301.6404-
2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163
(Aug. 13, 1987). Accordingly, we reject this argument.
B. Delays in the Processing of Petitioners’ Case
Petitioners also argue that respondent caused unnecessary
delays during the processing of their case by twice canceling
meetings with Ms. Ray and generally behaving in a dilatory
manner. Respondent contends that to the extent any delays
occurred, petitioners were primarily responsible and, regardless,
no delays occurred with respect to respondent’s performance of
ministerial acts.
Even assuming, as petitioners allege, that an excessive
amount of time has elapsed since the audit’s inception, the mere
passage of time does not necessarily establish that respondent
delayed in performing ministerial acts. See Lee v. Commissioner,
supra at 150; Denny’s Auto Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, T.C.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011