- 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 interest
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011