- 27 -
Petitioner does not direct our attention to any actions or
failures to act by IRS employees that could be considered
erroneous or dilatory ministerial or managerial actions or
failures to act during this period.
Viewing the record most favorably to petitioner, we conclude
that no IRS officials or employees were erroneous or dilatory in
performing a ministerial or managerial act during the fourth
period. We have found that respondent’s failure to abate
interest for this period was not an abuse of discretion. We
shall grant respondent’s summary judgment motion with respect to
the fourth period.
c. Other Matters
(1) Petitioner’s Deemed Motion
Petitioner does not appear to dispute respondent’s
contention that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact, but he requests “adjudication in my favor” on the merits of
the underlying case. We have occasionally treated such
situations as deemed cross-motions for summary judgment. If we
had done so in the instant case, however, we would be constrained
to deny the deemed cross-motion. As to those parts of
respondent’s motion that we grant, it is clear that petitioner’s
case is lost. As to those parts of respondent’s motion that we
deny, we do so not because the record shows that petitioner
should prevail, but because respondent has failed to present
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008