- 29 -
Section 1.469-5T(a)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs.
Petitioners' Challenge to the Validity of Section
1.469-5T(a)(1), Temporary Income Tax Regs.
Although their argument is not altogether clear, as we
understand it, petitioners contend that section 1.469-5T(a)(1),
Temporary Income Tax Regs., 53 Fed. Reg. 5725 (Feb. 25, 1988), is
invalid because, by requiring an individual to participate in an
activity for more than 500 hours during a taxable year in order
to be treated as materially participating in that activity for
such year, that regulation is quantitative, rather than qualita-
tive, in nature, and, consequently, it is an unreasonable inter-
pretation of section 469(h)(1).
Initially, we note that temporary regulations have binding
effect and are entitled to the same weight as final regulations.
Peterson Marital Trust v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 790, 797 (1994),
affd. F.3d (2d Cir., Mar. 4, 1996); Truck & Equip. Corp.
v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 141, 149 (1992); see LeCroy Research
Sys. Corp. v. Commissioner, 751 F.2d 123, 127 (2d Cir. 1984),
revg. on other grounds T.C. Memo. 1984-145. Therefore, in deter-
mining the validity of temporary regulations, we apply the same
analysis as that used in determining the validity of final regul-
ations. Schaefer v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 227, 229 (1995).
The judicial deference accorded to a regulation generally
depends on whether the regulation is classified as a legislative
or an interpretative regulation. See Dresser Indus., Inc. v.
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011