- 23 - of first contact9 to issue the FPAAs, yet delayed issuing the FPAAs for almost 3 years; and (2) the original 1985 and 1986 tax year audits were so replete with errors that respondent had to completely reaudit SGE starting in August 1990. Petitioner’s first claim alleges that through (1) document requests in 1986 related to respondent’s trial preparation in Bales v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1989-568, and (2) respondent’s inspection and count of the Hoyt cattle in 1985 and 1986, respondent obtained and reviewed all the information necessary to issue FPAAs for SGE’s 1985 and 1986 tax years by 1987. Petitioner concludes that delays in performing a ministerial act occurred during the audits because the 1985 and 1986 FPAAs were issued well after 1987. However, petitioner has failed to show that respondent’s issuance of FPAA’s after 1987 constituted delay in the performance of a ministerial act. It appears that petitioner considers himself entitled to the relief sought merely because of the time that transpired from the date the audits began until the dates the FPAAs were issued. The mere passage of time, however, does not establish error or delay in performing a ministerial act. Hawksley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-354. 9 Respondent’s first contact with petitioner for purposes of sec. 6404(e) was Dec. 17, 1987, the date that respondent sent the notice of beginning of administrative proceeding (NBAP) to the tax matters partner for the 1985 tax year.Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011