- 15 -
e.g., Bausch & Lomb, Inc. v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 1084, 1088
(2d Cir. 1991) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
implicitly approved our de novo consideration of section 482
reallocations), affg. 92 T.C. 525 (1989); (3) fail to waive
penalties and additions to tax, e.g., Krause v. Commissioner, 99
T.C. 132, 179 (1992) (based in part on the Commissioner’s
expert’s testimony that taxpayers were influenced by energy
crisis to invest in energy partnerships, failure to waive the
addition to tax for underpayment attributable to valuation
overstatement under section 6659(e) was an abuse of discretion),
affd. sub nom. Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024 (10th
Cir. 1994); (4) refuse to abate interest under section 6404, see
paragraph A-3, above; (5) refuse to grant the taxpayer’s request
for an extension of time to file, e.g., Estate of Proios v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-442 (taxpayer’s failure to call
witnesses held against the taxpayer); and (6) disallow a bad debt
reserve deduction, e.g., Newlin Mach. Corp. v. Commissioner, 28
8(...continued)
contention that Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522
(1979), limits the court to review of the record and the facts
upon which the Commissioner relied in making the determination.
The court said that the Supreme Court did not indicate in Thor
Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and AAA v. United States,
367 U.S. 687 (1961), “that either the Tax Court or the Court of
Claims improperly conducted a trial de novo to determine whether
the Commissioner had, in fact, abused his discretion in
determining whether the accounting method clearly reflected
income. Instead, the [Supreme] Court relied on the findings of
fact of both courts in making its own determination.” Mulholland
v. United States, supra at 756.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011