William and Penny Landvogt - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          19, 23 (1999).  We now consider each of petitioners’ arguments in           
          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