- 10 -
refusal to abate $210.98 in interest for 1981 was not an abuse of
discretion because that interest did not accrue during the time
respondent lost petitioners’ 1981-82 amended returns.
C. Whether Respondent’s Loss of Petitioners’ 1981-82 Amended
Returns Was a Ministerial Act
Respondent contends that respondent’s loss of petitioners’
1981-82 amended returns was not a ministerial act. We disagree.
Respondent’s loss of petitioners’ 1981-82 amended returns
fits easily within the definition of a ministerial act contained
in Treasury regulations. Those regulations state that a
ministerial act is a procedural or mechanical act that occurs
during the processing of a taxpayer’s case that does not involve
the exercise of judgment or discretion by the Commissioner. Sec.
301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg.
30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). The Commissioner’s loss of a taxpayer’s
return is a procedural or mechanical act that does not involve
the exercise of discretion or judgment by the Commissioner. The
Commissioner’s loss of a taxpayer’s returns is similar to an
unexplained delay in transferring a file or issuing a notice of
deficiency. See, e.g., sec. 301.6404-2T(b), Examples (1) and
(2), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra.
In contrast, the loss of a taxpayer’s return is unlike a
decision about prioritizing cases or decisions (based on workload
and limited resources) whether or when to begin an audit or
whether to send a revenue agent to training without reassigning
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011