Thomas Frederick Dadian and Lois Ann Dadian - Page 15

                                       - 15 -                                         
        in order to determine whether any ministerial errors by respondent            
        contributed to the subsequent delays in petitioners’ case.                    
        C.  October 1993 Through March 1996                                           
             After the terms of the settlement were resolved, respondent              
        had to identify each of the 37 Redwood partners, determine each               
        partner’s cash account, and divide each cash account in half to               
        arrive at the allowable deduction for each partner.  All of this              
        information was available to Ms. Sullivan on the records provided             
        by the Swanton Corp.  The determination of the allowable amounts              
        did not involve any tax computation; it simply involved taking                
        one-half of each partner’s cash account.  The closing agreement               
        language had previously been agreed upon, and, therefore, the                 
        preparation of each closing agreement was a matter of inserting               
        the amount allowable as a deduction.  We therefore conclude that              
        Ms. Sullivan’s remaining tasks were ministerial acts.  See, e.g.,             
        sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(2), Example (2), Temporary Proced. & Admin.               
        Regs., supra.                                                                 
             Given the number of investors involved in the settlement,                
        there were many closing agreements that needed to be prepared, but            
        the South Bay closing agreement was not sent to Redwood until                 
        February or March 1996, a period of 2-1/2 years after the terms of            
        settlement were agreed on.                                                    
             This Court recently held that it was not a ministerial error             
        for respondent to send out closing agreements to a similar Swanton            






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011