- 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