MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAWSON, Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial Judge Lewis R. Carluzzo pursuant to section 7443A(b)(5) and Rules 180, 181, and 183. ¹ The Court agrees with and adopts2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*240 the opinion of the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.

         OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE

CARLUZZO, Special Trial Judge: On February 28, 2001, respondent issued a notice of final determination denying in large part petitioners' request to abate interest on their Federal income tax liabilities for 1986 through 1989, inclusive, and 1991 (the underlying years). In response to that notice, petitioners timely petitioned this Court to review respondent's denial. Our jurisdiction is established by section 6404(h). ² The issue for decision is whether respondent's failure to abate interest on petitioners' Federal income tax liabilities for the underlying years is an abuse of discretion.

2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*241              Background

Petitioners resided in Barrow, Alaska, at the time the petition was filed. The facts in this case, all of which have been stipulated, are summarized below.

Petitioners are husband and wife. They filed timely joint Federal income tax returns for 1987, 1988, and 1989, but untimely returns for 1986 and 1991. ³

For convenience, only some of the details of the assessment process for the underlying years are set forth in the body of this opinion; additional details are contained in the Appendix.

By letter dated September 12, 1988, respondent notified petitioners that their 1986 return was under examination. That return was selected for examination because of deductions claimed2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*242 for the donation of whale meat and whaling expenses. The initial interview with the petitioners took place on October 20, 1988. On or around November 1, 1988, the examination was extended to include petitioners' 1987 return, on which similar deductions were claimed. An examination report proposing to disallow the above-referenced deductions (presumably for both years) was mailed to petitioners on February 8, 1989. Petitioners' protest was received on July 3, 1989, and an Appeals officer was assigned 2 weeks later. On August 1, 1989, the Appeals officer scheduled a conference with petitioners' representative. During Appeals consideration, much correspondence was exchanged, and several conferences took place. On June 14, 1991, respondent's Appeals Office issued a notice of deficiency to petitioners in which deficiencies in their 1986 and 1987 income taxes were determined. Petitioners timely petitioned this Court in response to that notice on September 16, 1991 (docket No. 20784-91). That docketed case was set for trial but was continued several times. Ultimately, a stipulated decision was entered on February 29, 2000, and the deficiencies, an addition to tax, and interest were assessed2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*243 on May 29, 2000.

The examination, Appeals consideration, and litigation phases for the years 1988, 1989, and 1991 progressed in a manner similar to that for the years 1986 and 1987. For each of these later years, deductions similar to the those claimed and disallowed for 1986 and 1987 were also claimed and disallowed. However, by the time the examination of 1991 was completed, petitioners had decided to forgo Appeals consideration and proceed with a test case before this Court.

As of July 28, 1994, petitioners had three cases docketed in this Court (the docketed cases). ⁴ The docketed cases were consolidated with other cases involving similarly situated taxpayers. At petitioners' request, the docketed cases were held in suspense to allow for the enactment of proposed Federal legislation that specifically addressed the types of deductions in dispute in those cases. Although the proposed legislation was never enacted, petitioners and respondent agreed to a settlement in each of the docketed cases, the terms of which are consistent with the relief contemplated by the proposed legislation.

2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*244 On May 29, 2000, consistent with the stipulated decision document entered in each of the docketed cases, deficiencies, additions to tax, and interest in the following amounts were assessed:

   Year     Deficiency    Sec. 6651(a)     Interest

   ____     __________    ____________     ________

   1986     $  7,253.00     $ 147.80     $ 16,578.00

   1987     23,488.00       --       45,545.88

   1988     14,044.00       --       22,934.40

   1989      5,753.00       --       7,776.27

   1991      3,001.12      718.57      3,382.33

On June 27, 2000, respondent received from petitioners a separate Form 843, Claim for Refund and Request for Abatement, for each of the underlying years (the abatement claims). Block 5 of the abatement claims is designated "Explanation and additional claims." Instructions following the designation direct the taxpayer to "Explain why * * * this claim should be allowed, and show computation of tax refund or abatement of interest, penalty, or addition to tax." In the2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*245 space below these instructions on each of the abatement claims, petitioners inserted the following:

   Our 1986 [1987, 1988, 1989, or 1991, as appropriate] return was

   audited, brought to the Appeals Office, and in Tax Court. We

   have a good faith belief that delays occurred in preforming

   [sic] ministerial acts by an officer or employee of the Internal

   Revenue Service during that period * * *. The occurance [sic] of

   such delays requires the abatement of the assessment of interest

   for those particular periods. Furthermore, throughout much of

   this period legislation was pending which would have

   substantially affected the treatment of specific deductions.

   Accordingly, the Service postponed consideration of these

   matters. Further, a death in the family of our legal counsel

   resulted in an additional delay in consideration of our case. In

   light of the ministerial delays, and as well as our reliance on

   the actions of Congress, the failure to abate interest in our

   circumstances would constitute grossly unfair treatment and

   impose on us an undue hardship.

On2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*246 the abatement claims, petitioners requested abatement of interest as follows:

   Year         Period      Approximate Amount

   ____         ______      __________________

   1986     02/02/1989 -- 1

By letter dated January 24, 2001, respondent notified petitioner that for 1986 and 1987, $ 295.43 of interest that accrued from June 8 to July 3, 1989, would be abated, but otherwise denied each of petitioners' requests for abatement of interest. The reason for the partial allowance has not been provided. By letter dated February 23, 2001, petitioners requested that respondent's Appeals Office reconsider the portion of the abatement claims that had been denied. On February 28, 2001, respondent issued a notice of final determination in which respondent refused, with the exception previously noted, to abate interest on petitioners' Federal income tax liabilities for the underlying years.

             Discussion

In general, interest on a Federal income tax liability begins to accrue on the due date of the return and continues to accrue, compounding daily, until payment is made. Secs. 6601(a), 2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*247 6622.

The Commissioner has the authority to abate the assessment of interest on a deficiency or payment of income tax if the accrual of such interest is attributable to an error or delay by an official or employee of the Internal Revenue Service in performing a ministerial act. Sec. 6404(e)(1). ⁵ A ministerial act means a procedural or mechanical act that does not involve the exercise of judgment. Lee v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 145">113 T.C. 145, 113 T.C. 145">149-150 (1999); sec. 301.6404-2T, Temporary Proced. & Admin. Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 30163 (Aug. 13, 1987). A prerequisite to the relief contemplated by section 6404(e) is the "erroneous or dilatory performance of a ministerial act" by the Commissioner's employee that results in the accrual of interest the taxpayer seeks to have abated.

2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*248 In the abatement claims, petitioners state that they have a good faith belief that delays occurred in preforming ministerial acts, but they have failed to identify a single instance of respondent's dilatory performance of a ministerial act, and respondent has not admitted to any. Instead, petitioners offered the following in their opening brief:

   While petitioners believed, and still believe, that a deduction

   was probably claimable under existing law, attempts were made to

   clarify the situation by requesting retroactive legislation in

   Congress. There was substantial interest in this legislation

   which made it through numerous committee layers at various

   times. However, the legislation failed to pass prior to this

   matter being finally set for trial. After careful

   reconsideration of the matter, the Respondent agreed that some

   charitable deductions were proper and the underlying tax

   liability was settled. However, due to the delay in waiting for

   legislation, a delay caused by an illness and death of a close

   family member of Petitioners' counsel, and other factors as

   noted in the2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*249 stipulated agreed facts, substantial interest was

   imposed.

The above-quoted passage, as well as the statements contained in the abatement claims, greatly undermines petitioners' claim to section 6404(e) relief. We have reviewed the examination history (including Appeals consideration and litigation phases) of petitioners' Federal income tax returns for the underlying years as set forth in the Appeals officer's chronology of events and, with the exception of the duration of the docketed cases, find nothing out of the ordinary in either the sequence of events or the passage of time between events. Moreover, petitioners acknowledge, as evidenced by the above-quoted passages, that the length of time that the docketed cases were pending is not attributable to the erroneous or dilatory performance of a ministerial act by respondent's employee. See 113 T.C. 145">Lee v. Commissioner, supra.

Resolution of the docketed cases was obviously delayed to allow for the enactment of the proposed legislation, and the delay resulted in the imposition of interest. We are not unsympathetic to petitioners' situation and the frustration that must have followed their failed attempts to resolve their2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*250 tax disputes through legislation long promised but never enacted. Nevertheless, under the circumstances, the additional interest that accrued during the period of delay of the docketed cases is not subject to abatement under section 6404(e). Simply put, the interest that accrued on petitioners' Federal income tax liabilities for the underlying years results from petitioners' failure to pay their Federal income tax liability for each year when due. Section 6404(e) does not authorize the abatement of interest upon that ground, and respondent's refusal to do so is not an abuse of discretion. See Donovan v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-220; Douponce v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1999-398.

To reflect the foregoing,

Decision will be entered for respondent.

               APPENDIX

______________________________________________________________________________

    EVENT                    DATE OF EVENT

______________________________________________________________________________

                 Docket No.      Docket No.   Docket2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*251 No.

                  20784-91       23983-92     13503-94

______________________________________________________________________________

                1986    1987    1988    1989    1991

______________________________________________________________________________

Filed Federal income tax

returns             09/04/87   Timely   Timely   Timely   04/14/93

Commenced examination      09/12/88  11/01/88  03/28/91  02/15/91  09/13/93

Initial interview        10/20/88  unknown   unknown   03/08/91   unknown

Prepared Report

Transmittal, Reviewed and

Approved for Appeals      02/28/89  02/28/89  unknown   unknown   unknown

Received petitioners'

Written Protest for an

Appeals Conference       07/03/89  07/03/89  02/11/92  02/11/92  08/01/94

Appeals officer assigned    07/18/89  07/18/89  unknown   unknown   09/29/94

Scheduled Appeals conference  08/01/89  08/01/89  03/04/92  03/04/92  09/30/94

Held Appeals conference     10/31/89  10/31/89  04/28/92  04/28/92  2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*252 unknown

Respondent mailed settlement

offer              04/10/91  04/10/91   unknown   unknown   unknown

Petitioners rejected

settlement offer        05/28/91  05/28/91  07/16/92  07/16/92   unknown

Issued Notice of Deficiency   06/14/91  06/14/91  07/30/92  07/30/92  04/29/94

Filed Petition         09/16/91  09/16/91  10/27/92  10/27/92  07/28/94

Petitioner filed status

report with Tax Court on

proposed legislation      06/08/94  06/08/94  06/08/94  06/08/94  06/08/94

Reconsidered settlement     06/13/94  06/13/94  06/13/94  06/13/94   n/a

Respondent filed status

report with Tax Court on

proposed legislation      01/27/95  01/27/95  01/27/95  01/27/95  01/27/95

Respondent filed second

status report with Tax

Court on proposed

legislation           09/26/97  09/26/97  09/26/97  09/26/97  09/26/97

Petitioner filed second

status report with Tax

Court on proposed

legislation           12/02/98  12/02/98  12/02/98  12/02/98  12/02/98

Settlement conference with

Appeals     2003 Tax Ct. Memo LEXIS 237">*253         09/02/99  09/02/99  09/02/99  09/02/99  09/02/99

Stipulated decision

entered by Tax Court      02/29/00  02/29/00  02/29/00  02/29/00  02/29/00

Assessment of tax,

penalties, and interest     05/29/00  05/29/00  05/29/00  05/29/00  05/29/00

______________________________________________________________________________