- 20 -
301.6404-2T(b)(1) and (2), Example (4), Temporary Proced. &
Admin. Regs., supra.
3. Job-Related Training
Petitioners point out that Watson attended job-related
training from April 30 to May 11, 2001, and contend that this
delay is due to a ministerial act. We disagree.
The decision to send Watson to job-related training and to
not reassign the case is not a ministerial act under section
6404(e)(1). Durham v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2004-125; Goettee
v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-43; Jean v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2002-256; Camerato v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-28;
Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123; sec.
301.6404-2T(b)(2), Example (4), Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
supra.
C. June 26 to November 7, 2001
Respondent lost petitioners’ file from June 26 to November
7, 2001. The Commissioner’s loss of a taxpayer’s file is a
ministerial act. Palihnich v. Commissioner, supra. Respondent
concedes that interest that accrued during this period should be
abated.
Petitioners contend that respondent lost petitioners’ files
many other times. However, petitioners have not identified those
times, and the record does not support that conclusion.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011