- 26 -
The entire record establishes that the four agents were
assigned to District Counsel to assist in trial preparation
relating to the Hoyt investor partnerships docketed Tax Court
cases contesting the determinations made in the FPAAs.
Petitioner has failed to show that respondent performed the
functions of traditional audit work during trial preparation. In
any event, no conclusion can be drawn from the work performed
during the trial preparation that the 1985 and 1986 SGE audits
were replete with errors because of respondent’s being erroneous
or dilatory in performing any ministerial act.
Since we have rejected both of petitioner’s claims described
above, finding that he failed to establish any error or delay by
respondent in performing a ministerial act, we hold that
respondent’s failure to abate interest from December 17, 1987,
until August 31, 1990, was not an abuse of discretion.
D. Whether Respondent’s Refusal To Abate Interest From October
17, 1989, to December 31, 1998, Was an Abuse of Discretion
Petitioner contends that interest should be abated from
October 17, 1989, until December 31, 1998, because respondent’s
failure to remove Jay Hoyt as the TMP of SGE after he was under a
criminal tax investigation was an error in performing a
ministerial act. Petitioner argues that Jay Hoyt’s removal as
TMP was required by the interrelationship of section 6231(c),
section 301.6231(c)-5T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed.
Page: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011