- 18 -
period." H. Rept. 99-426, at 844 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1,
844; S. Rept. 99-313, at 208 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 208.
Petitioners request abatement partly because respondent did
not notify them that their return had been selected for
examination until September 23, 1997. They argue that such a
length of time constitutes a ministerial error by respondent and
warrants an abatement of interest.
For purposes of section 6404(e), an error or delay cannot be
considered for the period before September 23, 1997, because that
is the date on which respondent first contacted petitioners in
writing regarding the deficiency for 1995. See sec. 6404(e);
Krugman v. Commissioner, supra at 239; Nerad v. Commissioner,
T.C. Memo. 1999-376.
Petitioners also assert that the audit was unreasonably
lengthy because several different IRS employees participated in
the audit. There is no evidence in the record that any of the
employees assigned to petitioners' audit mishandled any portion
of the audit. There were no significant delays by respondent
replying to contacts or correspondence from petitioners. The
greatest delays came in petitioners' responses to respondent's
document requests.
Respondent's decisions on how to proceed during the audit
necessarily required the exercise of judgment and thus cannot be
ministerial acts. Additionally, the mere passage of time does
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011