- 32 -
Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra, involves the exercise of the
Commissioner’s discretion and is not a mandatory procedure, the
act of notification is not a ministerial act. See Camerato v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-28 (defining ministerial act as a
nondiscretionary procedural act); sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1),
Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra (same). Therefore,
respondent’s failure to send Jay Hoyt notice of the criminal
investigation was not an error in performing a ministerial act.
Because there was no error in performing a ministerial act,
we hold that respondent’s failure to abate interest from October
17, 1987, until December 31, 1998, was not an abuse of
discretion.
E. Petitioner’s Claims That Respondent’s Denial of Interest
Abatement Was an Abuse of Discretion
Petitioner sets forth various assertions that respondent
failed to (1) provide discoverable documents, (2) adequately
investigate his interest abatement claim, and (3) provide a
sufficient explanation for denying the claim. Petitioner makes
these arguments in an attempt to establish that respondent’s
decision not to abate interest was an abuse of discretion.
Because we have held that petitioner failed to establish an
error or delay by an employee of the IRS in performing a
ministerial act, we reject petitioner’s arguments that the
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