-43-
deciding to revoke a ruling retroactively, and that such a
determination is reviewable by the courts only for abuse of that
discretion. Automobile Club v. Commissioner, 353 U.S. 180, 184
(1957); see Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S. 68 (1965). See
generally, Virginia Education Fund v. Commissioner, 85 T.C. 743
(1985), affd. 799 F.2d 903 (4th Cir. 1986).
More recently, in a different but analogous setting, we
described review of exercise of discretion as follows:
Whether the Commissioner has abused his discretion is a
question of fact. Buzzetta Construction Corp. v.
Commissioner, 92 T.C. 641, 649 (1989); Estate of Gardner v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989, 1000 (1984). In reviewing the
Commissioner’s actions, however, we do not substitute our
judgment for the Commissioner’s, nor do we permit taxpayers
to carry their burden of proof by a mere preponderance of
15(...continued)
This provision was extensively revised by sec. 1101(a) of the
Taxpayer Bill of Rights 2, Pub. L. 104-168, 110 Stat. 1452,
1468 (1996), effective for regulations which relate to statutory
provisions enacted after July 30, 1996, and so does not affect
the instant case. We note that present sec. 7805(b)(8) provides
as follows:
SEC. 7805. RULES AND REGULATIONS.
* * * * * * *
(b) Retroactivity of Regulations.--
* * * * * * *
(8) Application to rulings.--The Secretary
may prescribe the extent, if any, to which any
ruling (including any judicial decision or any
administrative determination other than by
regulation) relating to the internal revenue laws
shall be applied without retroactive effect.
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011