- 26 -
conducted trials on the issue of whether the Commissioner’s
denial of a request to abate interest under section 6404 was an
abuse of discretion. See, e.g., Goettee v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 2003-43; Jacobs v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2000-123.
Additionally, other cases the Court has decided under the
abuse of discretion standard include waiver of additions to tax,
Krause v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 132, 179 (1992), affd. sub nom.
Hildebrand v. Commissioner, 28 F.3d 1024 (10th Cir. 1994);
reallocation of income or deduction under section 482, Bausch &
Lomb v. Commissioner, 933 F.2d 1084, 1088 (2d Cir. 1991), affg.
92 T.C. 525 (1989); declaratory judgment, Fujinon Optical, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 76 T.C. 499, 506-507 (1981); tax-exempt status,
Lowry Hosp. Association v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 850 (1976); and
change of accounting method, Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner,
439 U.S. 522, 532-533 (1979); Bank One Corp. v. Commissioner, 120
T.C. 174 (2003). In none of these types of cases have we held
that the APA applies or that we are limited to the administrative
record.
For the reasons set forth supra, we conclude that our review
under section 6330(d) of an Appeals officer’s determination is
not limited to the administrative record.
C. Whether the Evidence Presented at Trial Relates
to Issues Raised at the Hearing
Respondent, citing Magana v. Commissioner, 118 T.C. 488, 493
(2002), contends that “only ‘arguments, issues and other matter’
Page: Previous 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011