- 9 - Program, this factor does not provide relief for petitioners. See Mills, Mitchell & Turner v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-99. The CAP Program was a completely discretionary program. It is well settled that a court may not order an agency to perform a discretionary act. Capitol Fed. Sav. & Loan v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 204, 212 (1991); Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 648; Oakton Distribs., Inc. v. Commissioner, 73 T.C. 182, 188 (1979). Moreover, this Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Commissioner when reviewing discretionary acts. Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. The Commissioner’s exercise of discretionary power will not be disturbed unless the Commissioner abuses such discretion by making a determination that is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. Id. Whether the Commissioner has abused her discretion is a question of fact, and the taxpayer’s burden of proving an abuse of discretion is greater than that of the usual preponderance of the evidence. Pulver Roofing Co. v. Commissioner, 70 T.C. 1001, 1011 (1978). We find that petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proof in the instant case. We find further that the lump-sum distributions received by petitioners in 1988 from their profit- sharing plan are includable in gross income for taxable year 1988 under sections 402(b)(1) and 83, and this result cannot bePage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011