William and Penny Landvogt - Page 11

                                       - 11 -                                         
          Memo. 2002-266.  Petitioners have not identified any specific               
          delays attributable to respondent other than the two meeting                
          cancellations.  On both occasions when Mr. Gernetzke decided to             
          cancel the meetings with Ms. Ray, he exercised judgment and                 
          discretion and, therefore, did not perform ministerial acts.  We            
          find no evidence supporting petitioners’ contention that                    
          respondent’s failure to abate interest on this basis was an abuse           
          of discretion.                                                              
          C.  Accuracy of the Amount of Petitioners’ Income Tax Liabilities           
               According to petitioners’ third argument, respondent                   
          inaccurately classified and evaluated information provided by               
          petitioners during the audit and failed to state the correct                
          amount of petitioners’ income tax liabilities “from the very                
          beginning”.  Petitioners assert that these errors entitled them             
          to an abatement of interest, and, thus, respondent’s failure to             
          abate was an abuse of discretion.  We disagree for the reasons              
          set forth below.                                                            
               Contrary to petitioners’ assertions, respondent’s                      
          classification and evaluation of information during an audit                
          requires judgment or discretion and is not a ministerial act.               
          See sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52            
          Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987).  The remaining allegation made             
          by petitioners focuses on respondent’s computation of                       
          petitioners’ income tax liabilities in the notice of deficiency.            

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011