- 12 -
H. Rept. 105-148, at 639 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 1) 319, 961;
S. Rept. 105-33, at 304 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1067, 1384;
H. Conf. Rept. 105-220, at 734 (1997), 1997-4 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1457,
2204. As another example, section 6404 authorizes this Court to
“determine” whether the Secretary’s refusal to abate interest was
an abuse of discretion. Our practice has been to make our
determination after providing an opportunity for a trial de novo.
See, e.g., Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2003-43; Jean v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2002-256; Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2000-123.
Our long tradition of providing trials de novo in making our
determinations, and Congress’s use of the word “determine” in our
jurisdictional grant in section 6015(e)(1)(A), suggest that
Congress intended that we provide an opportunity for a trial de
novo in making our determinations under section 6015(f).7
7 This Court has jurisdiction to issue declaratory
judgments relating to the status, qualification, valuation, or
classification of certain sec. 501(c)(3) organizations,
retirement plans, gifts, governmental obligations, and
installment payments under sec. 6166. Secs. 7428, 7476, 7477,
7478, 7479. None of those sections authorizes us to make a
determination; instead, those provisions authorize this Court,
after the Commissioner has made a determination, to make a
declaration with respect to the matter.
Our Rules relating to declaratory judgment cases provide for
consideration of evidence not in the administrative record under
various circumstances. Our disposition of actions under sec.
7476 for declaratory judgment involving the initial qualification
of a retirement plan, and actions under sec. 7428 for the initial
qualification or classification of an exempt organization,
private foundation, or private operating foundation is
(continued...)
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011