Alumax Inc. and Consolidated Subsidiaries - Page 55

                                       - 47 -                                         
          authorities"12 that have construed the meaning of the terms                 
          "voting stock" and/or "voting power" for purposes of section                
          1504(a) and its predecessor provisions in the Internal Revenue              
          laws support their position under section 1504(a)(1).  According            
          to petitioners, those cases and rulings                                     
               consistently have defined "voting stock" as stock that                 
               has the right to vote in the election of directors and                 
               have measured a stock's "voting power" by reference to                 
               the voting power of the directors such stock elects.                   
               They have specifically not taken into account voting                   
               rights with respect to matters other than the right to                 
               vote in the election of directors, no matter how exten-                
               sive such rights may be, and have never measured voting                
               power other than by reference to the voting power of                   
               directors. * * *                                                       
          (We shall refer to the test that petitioners contend all perti-             
          nent case law and rulings require us to apply in resolving the              
          question presented under section 1504(a)(1) as the mechanical               
          test.)                                                                      
               According to petitioners, application of their mechanical              
          test mandates the following conclusions:                                    

          12  The so-called "administrative authorities" on which petition-           
          ers, as well as respondent, rely include various rulings, both              
          published and private, that the IRS has issued.  (We shall refer            
          collectively to those rulings as rulings.)  Revenue rulings are             
          not regarded as precedent in this Court.  They merely represent             
          the position of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Commis-               
          sioner) on a particular issue.  Lucky Stores, Inc. and Subs. v.             
          Commissioner, 105 T.C. 420, 433 (1995).  However, the public                
          generally has the right to rely on positions taken by the Commis-           
          sioner in revenue rulings.  Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. Commis-                
          sioner, 89 T.C. 765, 778 (1987).  Private letter rulings are not            
          regarded as precedent in this Court, and the public may not rely            
          on them.  See sec. 6110(j)(3); Shelton v. Commissioner, 105 T.C.            
          114, 119 (1995).                                                            





Page:  Previous  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  54  55  56  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011