14
The Government relies upon the TAM4 and contends that it is
not bound by the subsequent FCC rulings. In the first place, a
TAM is generally merely a "Letter Ruling" given to a specific
taxpayer based upon facts relating to that taxpayer. It is not a
ruling of general application. In Watts Copy Sys., Inc. v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-124, the Court stated that "We
recognize that technical advice memoranda are not precedent."
Indeed, section 6110(j)(3) provides "Unless the Secretary
otherwise establishes by regulations, a written determination may
not be used or cited as precedent." Moreover, unlike a revenue
ruling, a TAM is not published in the Cumulative Bulletin. It
certainly stands on an even weaker footing than a revenue
ruling,5 which itself does not have the authority of a Treasury
regulation promulgated pursuant to section 7805.
While it is true that the IRS need not follow decisions of
other agencies, the TAM's heavy reliance on the 1986 Detariffing
Order undermines the "authority" the IRS purports to give the
TAM. Since the TAM relied on the 1986 Detariffing Order holding
that B & C services were mainly a "financial and administrative
service", the FCC's change of position upon more mature
4 We note that the IRS has very recently issued another
technical advice memorandum, Tech. Adv. Memo. 97-22-006 (May 30,
1997), relating to the factual situation of a different taxpayer,
which would appear to muddy the waters further.
5 However, the TAM involved herein may arguably be treated
as attaining a status equivalent to a revenue ruling by reason of
reference thereto in Notice 92-33, 1992-2 C.B. 363. See supra p.
9.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011