- 22 -
thereafter, respondent issued petitioner a 30-day letter,
proposing adjustments. Petitioner filed an administrative
appeal, and after the notice of deficiency was issued in 1998,
petitioner litigated the deficiency in the Tax Court. That
litigation concluded in 1999; petitioner then entered into an
installment agreement with the IRS. In 2002, petitioner stopped
making installment payments. In these circumstances, we discern
no error or delay by respondent’s officers or employees in
performing a ministerial act.
Petitioner alleges that respondent failed to give him proper
credit for installment payments made. As previously discussed,
we find petitioner’s contentions in this regard to be unfounded.
In any event, respondent’s decision in this case to apply
payments to a particular year’s tax liability does not constitute
a ministerial act within the meaning of section 6404(e). See
Boyd v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-16.
3. Significant Aspects of Delay Attributable to Petitioner
Moreover, even if we were to assume, for the sake of
argument, that respondent’s officers or employees improperly
delayed performing (or failed to perform) one or more prescribed
ministerial acts, we would nevertheless conclude that significant
aspects of any such failure were attributable to petitioner, so
as to preclude relief under section 6404(e). It was petitioner’s
own fault that he failed to file returns for 1987 through 1991,
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011