James E. Redlark and Cheryl L. Redlark - Page 12

                                       - 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  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011