- 25 -
rejection of the modified second installment proposal, Krogue was
not being erroneous or dilatory in performing a ministerial act.
The negotiation of the IRS’s detailed proposal did not
involve an error or delay.
On May 31, 2002, petitioner received the necessary forms
from Krogue and noticed that they required $600 monthly payments
instead of the agreed-upon $400 monthly payments. They back-and-
forthed, finally speaking on June 12, 2002. Krogue’s notes are
as follows:
TP/POA CONTACT
RESULTS: TC from TP. Reviewed RO history and
5/21/02 history states that IA should be for $400.00 a
month. Agreed w/TP and ask him to cross out the
$600.00 and input $400.00, sign and return to RO. TP
agreed.
This error did not involve the exercise of judgment or
discretion, the supervisor’s review had already taken place, and
there was no problem of application of Federal tax law. We
conclude, and we have found, that in this matter Krogue was
erroneous in performing a ministerial act.
The record does not show whether the delay in processing the
installment payment agreement resulted in a delay in making
payments of tax, within the meaning of section 6404(e)(1)(B).
For purposes of respondent’s summary judgment motion, in the
absence of any reason to conclude otherwise, we assume that
Krogue’s error, which came to petitioner’s attention on May 31,
2002, and was corrected on June 12, 2002, caused a delay of at
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008