- 39 -
on the basis of the administrative record. See Rule 217(a).
Again, much as in Dittler Bros., Inc. v. Commissioner, supra, the
reason for this limited review procedure lies in a legislative
directive that “The court is to base its determination upon the
reasons provided by the Internal Revenue Service in its notice to
the party making the request for a determination, or based upon
any new matter which the Service may wish to introduce at the
time of trial.” H. Rept. 93-807, at 108 (1974), 1974-3 C.B.
(Supp.) 236, 343; see Rule 217(a), Explanatory Note, 68 T.C.
1048.5
By contrast, Congress has not imposed a restrictive standard
for this Court’s review of the Commissioner’s determinations
under section 6015. Clearly, when it enacted section 6015,
Congress was aware that this is a trial court that has
historically resolved cases by taking evidence and has never been
governed by the APA. Nothing in the statute or the legislative
history indicates that the APA is to apply to section 6015 cases
5 When Congress acted in 1976 to expand this Court’s
declaratory judgment jurisdiction to include matters involving
exempt organizations, the report of the Senate Finance Committee
stated: “The judgment of the court in a declaratory judgment
proceeding is to be * * * based upon the facts as presented to
the court”. S. Rept. 94-938, pt. 1, at 588 (1976), 1976-3 C.B.
(Vol. 3) 49, 626. In a footnote to this sentence, the report
added: “In many cases, this would be essentially the
administrative record before the Internal Revenue Service” and
cited the notes to the Tax Court’s rules. Id. at n.7, 1976-3
C.B. (Vol. 3) at 626. Notably, the legislative history makes no
reference to APA procedures, from which we infer that Congress
did not contemplate that APA procedures would apply.
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011