- 10 -
until the close of AMCOR-related partnership litigation
constitutes error or delay in performing a ministerial act.7
Petitioner also alleges that the imposition of interest is
grossly unfair because the amounts of interest assessed now
greatly exceed the amounts of the deficiencies. As we have noted
on several occasions, the mere passage of time does not establish
error or delay in performing a ministerial act. Lee v.
Commissioner, supra at 151; Mekulsia v. Commissioner, supra;
Hawksley v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-354; Cosgriff v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-241.
Petitioner further alleges that the information regarding
the examination status of Agri-Venture Fund contained in
respondent’s letter of January 20, 1997, was erroneous and its
inclusion constituted ministerial error.8
7 In Crop Associates-1986 v. Commissioner, supra, in answer
to the TMP’s allegations that respondent had delayed the
litigation of AMCOR partnership cases, we concluded that “Blame
(if any) for the time it took to proceed to the present posture
cannot be laid only at the feet of respondent.” Indeed, it
appears that the litigation was protracted by, among other
things, sundry claims advanced on behalf of the AMCOR
partnerships, none of which was deemed persuasive. See Crop
Associates-1986 v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 198 (1999); Agri-Cal
Venture Associates v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-271; Crop
Associates-1986 v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-216.
8 In his second amended petition, petitioner alleges that
an additional letter from respondent dated June 27, 2000,
contained similar erroneous information. Petitioner attached a
copy of that letter to his second amended petition, but no copy
of the letter was entered into evidence. Documentary material
attached to a petition is not evidence. Greengard v.
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007