- 27 -
decisions: "'[R]espondent has no power to promulgate a
regulation adding provisions that he believes Congress should
have included but did not." Durbin Paper Stock v. Commissioner,
supra at 261. "Respondent may not usurp the authority of
Congress by adding restrictions to a statute which are not
there.'" Id. at 257 (quoting Estate of Boeshore v. Commissioner,
78 T.C. 523, 527 (1982)). "[T]he regulation may not construct an
amendment to the statute." Jackson Family Found. v.
Commissioner, supra at 538.
Petitioners' reliance on this line of cases is misplaced.
In each of the cases cited the regulation directly conflicted
with the statute it purported to interpret. United States v.
Vogel Fertilizer, supra at 26 ("regulation is fundamentally at
odds with the manifest congressional design"); Western Natl. Mut.
Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 360 ("The statute here is
neither silent nor ambiguous with respect to the specific issue
in question"); Hughes Intl. Sales Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at
305 ("The legislative history directly undercuts section 1.993-
6(e)(1), Income Tax Regs."); Durbin Paper Stock Co. v.
Commissioner, supra at 257 ("Where the provisions of the statute
are unambiguous and its directive specific, there is no power to
amend it by regulation."). We have already explained at length
why we believe the Regulation in these cases is not inconsistent
with the statute. Here there is no unambiguous, specific
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011