- 55 -
Id. at 675 (quoting H. Rept. 94-1609 at 3 (1976)). Thus,
Congress has used the phrase “de novo determination” in the
context of other (non-tax) trial court proceedings to signify an
independent determination (i.e., without deference to the result
reached by the initial decisionmaker) by the trial court that is
nonetheless based on the record developed by the initial
decisionmaker.11
D. The “Abuse of Discretion” Standard of Review in Tax
Court Proceedings
1. The Majority Opinion
The majority acknowledges that the standard of review in
this case is abuse of discretion. As discussed above at I.A.3.,
regardless of the applicability of the APA, the abuse of
discretion standard traditionally has been associated with the
application of the record rule. The majority therefore is forced
11 In his concurring opinion, supra p. 34, Judge Thornton
concludes that the following statutory language renders our pre-
APA de novo trial procedures applicable to sec. 6015(f) cases:
“This subchapter, [and] chapter 7 * * * do not limit or repeal
additional requirements imposed by statute or otherwise
recognized by law.” APA sec. 559. We agree that the enactment
of the APA in 1946 did not preempt this Court’s existing de novo
trial procedures. See supra note 6 and accompanying text; see
also supra note 9. We do not agree that our jurisdiction to
review sec. 6015(f) adjudications, created in 1998, can be
stitched to our pre-APA deficiency jurisdiction for these
purposes. Specifically, we emphatically do not agree that sec.
6015 is “part and parcel” of the “specific statutory framework
for reviewing deficiency determinations of the Internal Revenue
Service.” Concurring op. supra p. 34; see infra discussion at
I.D.2.
Page: Previous 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011