- 20 -
Krogue told him appears to correctly describe the IRS’s policy in
such matters. As best we can tell from petitioner’s memorandum,
the gravamen of petitioner’s claim is that--
if she [Krogue] had determined that I had the assets to
pay the tax in full, was it not her duty to demand
payment in full at that time? With the fact that my
ability to pay was clearly eroding throughout the time
in which Ms. Krogue was assigned to my case (due to a
decline in the value of my investment portfolio), why
was Ms. Krogue unable to determine I had the ability to
pay in (or before) November, 2001, yet able to
determine I could in April, 2002, when I clearly had
less ability to pay?
As it developed, the IRS and petitioner ultimately did agree
on an installment arrangement, although it was far less generous
than that which petitioner proposed. Thus, the matter was not
open and shut, as petitioner seems to contend. Krogue described
the basic ground rules to petitioner and proceeded to gather
information helpful to a determination on this matter.
Viewing the record most favorably to petitioner, we conclude
that Krogue’s actions were neither erroneous nor dilatory in
performing a ministerial or managerial act during the first
period. We shall grant respondent’s summary judgment motion with
respect to the first period.
(2) Second Period (Dec. 14, 2001--Feb. 25, 2002)
Petitioner and Krogue back-and-forthed telephone calls. On
one of these telephone calls Krogue explained to petitioner what
matters had been keeping her from attending to petitioner’s case.
On February 26, 2002, Krogue examined the material petitioner had
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008