Estate of Gordon B. McLendon, Deceased, Gordon R. McLendon, Jr., Independent Executor - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         

          regulation, or case law on point.  See Silco, Inc. v. United                
          States, 779 F.2d 282, 286-287 (5th Cir. 1986).  In light of the             
          plethora of case law involving the issue presented herein, and              
          given that Rev. Rul. 80-80, supra, is nothing more than an                  
          interpretation of the case law, we do not consider the ruling to            
          have the force of law. It is worth noting here that petitioner              
          did not argue that respondent is somehow estopped to deny that              
          Rev. Rul. 80-80, supra, is controlling,4 nor would petitioner               
          have been likely to prevail on such an argument.  See Dickman v.            
          Commissioner, supra at 343.  In this regard, respondent was free            
          to modify her position vis-a-vis the revenue ruling.                        
          After reviewing the case law, and particularly the Court of                 
          Appeals for the Fifth Circuit's opinion in Miami Beach First                

               4Petitioner's reply brief, at 35, states:                              
               Respondent also ignores her own published Revenue                      
               Ruling (Rev. Rul. 80-80, 1980-1 C.B. 194) which was                    
               issued by Respondent to offer guidance to taxpayers                    
               dealing with the very question we have here for                        
               decision.  Respondent ignores Rev. Rul. 80-80 despite                  
               written indication from the National Office of the                     
               Internal Revenue Service that it considers Rev. Rul.                   
               80-80 the governing authority in this area and that                    
               further, the Internal Revenue Service follows the                      
               mandates of Rev. Rul. 80-80 in their litigating                        
               posture.  It would appear that there is a very serious                 
               lack of coordination between the National Office of the                
               Internal Revenue Service and local IRS trial counsel in                
               Dallas, Texas.  See Estate of Powell, T.C. Memo. 1992-                 
          We do not view the foregoing as stating a claim that respondent             
          should be estopped from advocating a legal standard other than              
          that set forth in Rev. Rul. 80-80, 1980-1 C.B. 194.                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011