- 19 -
Respondent determined that an election may not be made because
the estate was not initially eligible. There is nothing in the
statute or the legislative history that precludes our review of
the reasons. A narrow reading such as respondent’s would also
preclude our review of the denial of an election “‘if it were
made without a rational explanation, inexplicably departed from
established policies, or rested on an impermissible basis such as
an invidious discrimination against a particular race or group’”.
Estate of Gardner v. Commissioner, supra at 1000 (quoting Wong
Wing Hang v. INS, 360 F.2d 715, 719 (2d Cir. 1966)). “Such
allegations, if proved, would constitute the very essence of
arbitrary administrative action and an abuse of the discretion
granted.” Id. We cannot imagine that Congress intended to
eliminate review of determinations where such circumstances were
alleged to have existed.
Further, respondent’s interpretation would frustrate the
legislative purpose behind both sections 6166 and 7479. Congress
enacted section 7479 because “[it] believed that taxpayers should
have access to the courts to resolve disputes over an estate’s
eligibility for the section 6166 election, without requiring
potential liquidation of the assets that the installment
provisions of section 6166 are designed to protect.” Staff of
Joint Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of Tax Legislation
Enacted in 1997, at 74 (J. Comm. Print 1997). The broad
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007