- 29 -
nonpartnership items at the commencement of a criminal
investigation against him. Petitioner further asserts that since
respondent could exercise no judgment or discretion in issuing
the notice once the criminal investigation of Jay Hoyt began, the
procedure in the regulation requiring notification is a
ministerial act. Accordingly, he concludes that respondent’s
failure to send the required notification to Jay Hoyt was an
error in performing a ministerial act that contributed to the
accrual of interest.
Petitioner asserts that had respondent notified Jay Hoyt on
October 17, 1989, the date of the first criminal investigation of
Jay Hoyt after the first contact by respondent relating to the
audit of SGE,10 petitioner would have become aware of Jay Hoyt’s
fraud and could have made informed decisions about the SGE
deductions and credits he claimed. Further, petitioner claims
that respondent’s failure to send Jay Hoyt the notification
concealed Jay Hoyt’s fraud until December 31, 1998, the date
petitioner alleges that investors had sufficient information
concerning the fraud. On the basis of these claims, petitioner
requested that respondent abate interest from October 17, 1987,
until December 31, 1998. He contends that respondent’s failure
to abate interest for this period was an abuse of discretion.
10 Respondent’s first contact with petitioner for purposes
of sec. 6404(e) was Dec. 17, 1987. See supra note 9.
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