- 25 -
5. Other Instances Where the Court Reviews
for Abuse of Discretion
“The mere fact that judicial review is for abuse of
discretion * * * does not trigger application of the APA record
rule or preclude this Court from conducting a de novo trial.
* * * [This] Court has a long tradition of providing trials when
reviewing the Commissioner’s determinations under an abuse of
discretion standard.” Ewing v. Commissioner, 122 T.C. at 53
(Thornton, J., concurring). In Ewing, we held that when
reviewing the Commissioner’s determination for an abuse of
discretion under section 6015, we may consider evidence presented
at trial which was not included in the administrative record.
Id. at 44. Our review of section 6330 cases for abuse of
discretion is similar to our review of section 6015(f) cases--
which are reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 39; Sego
v. Commissioner, 114 T.C. at 610; Goza v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
at 181; Cheshire v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 183, 198 (2000), affd.
282 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2002); Butler v. Commissioner, 114 T.C.
276, 293 (2000).
The APA does not apply to challenges of the Commissioner’s
denials of requests to abate interest under section 6404, which
are reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Beall v. United
States, 336 F.3d 419, 427 n.9 (5th Cir. 2003) (“review under the
APA is accordingly available only where ‘there is no other
adequate remedy in a court’”). The Court has consistently
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011