- 21 -
D. November 8, 2001, to January 23, 2002
Watson did not work on petitioners’ case during unspecified
periods between November 8, 2001, and to January 17, 2002,
because she was working on other cases and she took annual leave.
Petitioners contend that Watson’s caseload and her annual leave
were ministerial acts which caused a delay in working on
petitioners’ case.
Deciding how and when to work on cases, on the basis of an
evaluation of the entire caseload and workload priorities, is not
a ministerial act. Bartelma v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2005-64;
Mekulsia v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-138, affd. 389 F.3d 601
(6th Cir. 2004). Granting annual leave is not a ministerial act.
See Scott v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-369. There is no
evidence that a ministerial act delayed respondent’s
consideration of petitioners’ case from November 9, 2001, to
January 23, 2002.
E. January 24 to July 23, 2002
We next decide whether respondent’s failure to enter the
code to release petitioners’ file from CDP status from January 24
to July 23, 2002, was a ministerial act for which they are
entitled to relief under section 6404(e). The code releasing
petitioners’ case from CDP status should have been entered on
January 24, 2002, when Watson closed their CDP file. The record
is silent as to when the code was entered. On July 23, 2002,
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