- 8 -
apply to this case because they apply only to interest accruing
with respect to deficiencies or payments for tax years beginning
after July 30, 1996. Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168,
sec. 301, 110 Stat. 1457 (1996).) A “ministerial act” is a
procedural or mechanical act that does not involve the exercise
of judgment or discretion and that occurs during the processing
of a taxpayer’s case after all prerequisites to the act have
taken place. Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin.
Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). The “mere passage of
time” during a tax dispute does not establish error or delay in
performing a ministerial act. Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145,
150 (1999). The Court may order abatement where the Commissioner
abuses his discretion by failing to abate interest. Sec.
6404(h)(1). In order to prevail, a taxpayer must prove that the
Commissioner exercised this discretion arbitrarily, capriciously,
or without sound basis in fact or law. Lee v. Commissioner,
supra at 149; Woodral v. Commissioner, 112 T.C. 19, 23 (1999).
Petitioners argue that there were a number of delays and
errors throughout the protest and appeals process. At trial of
these cases, however, petitioners failed to identify any specific
instances that would qualify, under the statute, as an error or
delay by an officer or employee of the IRS in performing a
ministerial act during the processing of their various protests,
appeals, and Tax Court cases. Only broad allegations regarding a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011