- 9 - lack of timeliness and accuracy were put forth. Petitioners made reference to lengthy periods during which they would hear nothing from the IRS. However, with the exception of McKenney’s inability to get AIMS controls in 2001 (for which an interest abatement had previously been allowed), a review of the work history and correspondence shows that IRS personnel were engaged in a managerial, decision-making process during these times and that there was no ministerial delay. Sec. 301.6404-2T(b)(1), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., supra. Acts that are either managerial or arise out of general administrative decisions are not ministerial. See Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003- 138, affd. 389 F.3d 601 (6th Cir. 2004). Deciding how and when to work on cases, based on an evaluation of the entire caseload and workload priorities, is not a ministerial act. See id. Petitioners also cite errors and miscalculations made in the amounts of liabilities owed for 1995, which were set forth in the April 24, 2001, letter from McKenney and later corrected by Welp. Again, petitioners were granted an abatement of interest for this period. There were no other specific instances of a ministerial error by respondent. In addition to denying any ministerial errors or delays, respondent argues that petitioners were made aware of the increasing interest on their liabilities in numerous letters and had the ability to pay their liabilities to stop the interestPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011