- 36 -
year after such sale". Sec. 1.993-3(d)(2)(i)(b), Income Tax
Regs. Petitioners contend that the destination test of the
regulation is not a proper interpretation of the statutory
provision and hence is invalid.
We have already addressed the destination test and found
valid section 1.993-3(d)(2)(i)(b), Income Tax Regs., in Sim-Air,
USA, Ltd. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 187, 190-197 (1992). There is
nothing in petitioners' argument here that would warrant a change
in our reasoning or conclusion concerning the validity of that
aspect of the DISC regulations. Petitioners also raise factual
distinctions between this case and Sim-Air. Factual differences
between cases, however, do not address the question of whether a
particular regulation is a proper interpretation of a statutory
provision.
Petitioners also argue that they should be relieved of the
1-year destination requirement because of the unforeseen factual
circumstances that caused them not to meet the regulation's
requirement. The taxpayer in Sim-Air made a similar argument
that was rejected. Id. at 197-198. Once a regulation is found
valid, it has the force and effect of law. That law (both the
statute and the regulation in question here) does not provide any
exception for reasonable delay or unforeseen events. Nor is
there room to interpret the statute or regulation to permit
petitioners' factual circumstances different treatment by means
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011