- 24 -
To determine whether an action has been committed
solely to agency discretion, we have followed the standards
followed in other Federal courts. Only in cases in which it
can be found that the existence of broad discretionary power
is not appropriate for judicial review, or that the agency
determination involves political, economic, military, or
other managerial choices not susceptible to judicial review,
or that the agency determination requires experience or
expertise for which legal education or the lawyer's skills
provide no particular competence for resolution and for
which there are no ascertainable standards against which the
expertise can be measured, have the courts refrained from
reviewing administrative discretion.
None of the foregoing circumstances, where action is committed
solely to agency discretion, are present in the instant case.
Our review does not involve political, economic, military, or
other managerial choices not susceptible to judicial review.
Respondent argues that there is no ascertainable standard
upon which to review respondent's discretionary denial of relief
pursuant to section 6015(f). We disagree. The language of
section 6015(f)(1), "taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the individual liable
for any unpaid tax or any deficiency (or any portion of either)"
does not differ significantly from the language of section
6015(b)(1)(D), "taking into account all the facts and
circumstances, it is inequitable to hold the other individual
liable for the deficiency in tax for such taxable year
attributable to such understatement". Indeed, the language of
section 6015(f)(1) does not differ significantly from the
language of former section 6013(e)(1)(D), "taking into account
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011