- 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