- 193 -
Corp. v. United States, 453 F.2d 300, 303 (2d Cir. 1971); First
Chicago Corp. v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 421, 438 (1991).
Based on our review of the entire record before us, we con-
clude that the Commissioner did not abuse her discretion by fail-
ing to limit the retroactive effect of Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra.
See Anderson, Clayton & Co. v. United States, supra at 983-984.
2. Petitioner's Claim That Respondent
Did Not Comply With Her Duty to En-
force the Federal Tax Law Consistently
Petitioner appears to argue that respondent abused her
discretion by not complying with her duty to enforce the Federal
tax law consistently144 when she applied Rev. Rul. 87-89, supra,
retroactively in these cases but allegedly not in cases involving
similarly situated taxpayers.145 In support of his argument,
petitioner relies on the same circumstances on which he relies on
brief in advancing his position that respondent violated his
right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment.
Based on our review of the entire record before us, and for
144 In advancing his abuse of discretion claim, petitioner
refers to respondent's alleged inconsistent treatment of taxpay-
ers as selective enforcement. We note that, in the context of
allegations of respondent's abuse of discretion, respondent's
obligation to enforce the Federal tax law consistently, and not
to enforce that law selectively, is generally referred to as
respondent's duty of consistency. See Jaggard v. Commissioner,
76 T.C. 222, 226-227 (1981).
145 See supra note 142 regarding the inconsistency of peti-
tioner's contentions.
Page: Previous 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011