- 12 -
Initially, we note that temporary regulations are accorded
the same weight as final regulations. Peterson Marital Trust v.
Commissioner, 102 T.C. 790, 797 (1994). The regulations involved
herein were promulgated pursuant to the general authority granted
to the Secretary of the Treasury by section 7805(a) and not
pursuant to specific legislative authority, T.D. 8168, 1988-1
C.B. 80, 83; they are therefore interpretative. An
interpretative regulation is owed "'less deference than a
regulation issued under a specific grant of authority to define a
statutory term or prescribe a method of executing a statutory
provision.'" United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. 16,
24 (1982) (quoting Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247, 253
(1981)). An interpretative regulation will be upheld if it is
found to "'implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable
manner'". United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. at 24
(quoting United States v. Correl., 389 U.S. 299, 307 (1967)).
Recently, the Supreme Court summarized the standard of
review as follows:
Under the formulation now familiar, when we confront an
expert administrator's statutory exposition, we inquire
first whether "the intent of Congress is clear" as to
"the precise question at issue." Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.
Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
842 (1984). If so, "that is the end of the matter."
(...continued)
Eighth Circuit then held that, contrary to the conclusion of the
District Court, the regulation was valid, and as such,
dispositive of the taxpayers' claimed interest deduction. Miller
v. United States, 65 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 1995). Because the
District Court's ultimate conclusion was that the interest at
issue was nondeductible personal interest, the Court of Appeals
affirmed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011