- 7 -
Secretary.” The abuse of discretion question in the section 179
setting is similar to the questions that arise under section
446(e), which also requires a taxpayer to obtain the Secretary’s
consent before changing a method of accounting. Under both
sections a formal request is to be made for consent to
revoke/change an election/method of accounting. See sec. 1.179-
5(b), Income Tax Regs.
Respondent is required to follow the statute and abide by
regulations reasonably based on the statute, and failure to do so
will amount to an abuse of discretion. Cf. Lansons, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 622 F.2d 774, 776 (5th Cir. 1980), affg. 69 T.C.
773 (1978); Buzzetta Constr. Corp. v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 641,
647 (1989). In reviewing the Commissioner’s discretionary
administrative acts we are not empowered to substitute our
judgment for that of the Commissioner. “The exercise of
discretionary power will not be disturbed unless the Commissioner
has abused his discretion, i.e., his determination is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious.” Buzzetta Constr. Corp.
v. Commissioner, supra at 648. The question of abuse of
discretion is factual, and the burden of showing abuse is greater
than a mere preponderance of evidence. See Estate of Gardner v.
Commissioner, 82 T.C. 989, 1000 (1984); Oakton Distribs., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 73 T.C. 182, 188 (1979).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011