- 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