- 21 -
stated that "The * * * [agency's] decision must be sufficiently
clear so that a court is not required to speculate as to its
basis." See also Estate of Gardner v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989,
1000 (1984) (quoting Wong Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715, 719 (2d
Cir. 1966) ("[A]gency action would be an abuse of discretion 'if
it were made without a rational explanation.'")).
We are satisfied from the evidence adduced at trial that
during the period April 4, 1989, through September 30, 1989,
i.e., while the case was back with Agent McBrien's examination
group, respondent's actions were not ministerial. However, as to
the period September 1, 1987, through November 17, 1991
(excepting the period April 4, 1989, through September 30, 1989),
respondent has failed to explain the rationale for respondent's
determination not to abate interest.
The Commissioner is in the best position to know what
actions were taken by IRS officers and employees during the
period for which petitioners' abatement request was made and
during any subsequent inquiry based upon that request. If we
were to uphold the Commissioner's determination not to abate
interest where the Commissioner has not clearly explained the
basis for the exercise of that discretion, we would be condoning
a review framework that would encourage the Commissioner to
provide as little information as possible about the handling of
cases during the period of the abatement request and about the
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011