- 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- 367. 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