- 12 -
respond to an earlier phone inquiry by respondent.14 These
errors, petitioner claims, account for the undue delay in
respondent’s denial of his offers in compromise. Consequently,
petitioner contends that respondent should have abated all
interest related to the Brauns’ tax liabilities for 1994 and
1997. We address each of petitioner’s contentions in turn.
1. Whether Petitioner Established an Error or Delay by
Respondent in Performing a Ministerial or Managerial Act
For petitioner to prevail, he must first identify an error
or delay by respondent in the performance of a ministerial act
for 1994 or a ministerial or managerial act for 1997. Examples
of ministerial errors or delays include an unreasonable delay in
the transferral of a case among IRS district offices or a delay
in the issuance of a deficiency notice after all discretionary
decisions in the case have occurred. See sec. 301.6404-2(c),
Examples (1) and (2), Proced. & Admin. Regs. Petitioner has
alleged no delays attributable to the transferral of his case
among IRS offices or a delay in issuing the Brauns a notice of
14Petitioner cites, as an example of respondent misleading
him, a call from respondent on Mar. 21, 2000, requesting pay
stubs and Form 433-A from petitioner. In response, petitioner
sent respondent two letters on Apr. 1 and Apr. 4, 2000. In a
letter on Apr. 5, 2000, respondent stated, among other things,
that he had “received no response” from petitioner to his earlier
phone call. Because respondent sent the letter merely 4 days
after petitioner’s earlier letter, however, it is plausible that
respondent had not received petitioner’s letters before he sent
his response.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011