James E. Stafford - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          under section 6213, and respondent has refrained from assessing             
          or collecting the taxes here at issue pending a final decision of           
          this Court, as also provided in section 6213.  All three of these           
          Internal Revenue Code sections have implementing regulations.               
          See secs. 301.6211-1, 301.6212-1, 301.6213-1, Proced. & Admin.              
          Regs.  Petitioner's claim that a lack of implementing regulations           
          vitiates respondent's authority to proceed in this case is                  

          12  Contrary to petitioner's claims, the absence of                         
          implementing regulations would not, generally speaking, preclude            
          the Commissioner from enforcing sections of the Internal Revenue            
          Code.  Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code generally do not             
          require implementing regulations as a prerequisite to                       
          enforcement.  See Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner, 82            
          T.C. 819, 829 (1984); see also E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v.             
          Commissioner, 102 T.C. 1, 13 (1994), affd. 41 F.3d 130 (3d Cir.             
          1994), affd. sub nom. Conoco, Inc. v. Commissioner, 42 F.3d 972             
          (5th Cir. 1995).                                                            
               Petitioner's reliance on California Bankers Association v.             
          Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974); Lyeth v. Hoey, 305 U.S. 188 (1938);             
          and Dodd v. United States, 223 F. Supp. 785 (D.N.J. 1963), affd.            
          345 F.2d 715 (3d Cir. 1965), for the proposition that the                   
          Commissioner lacks authority to enforce Internal Revenue Code               
          provisions without implementing regulations, is misplaced.                  
               Petitioner quotes, out of context, the observation in Dodd             
          that "For Federal tax purposes, the Federal Regulations govern."            
          Dodd v. United States, supra at 787.  But the proposition for               
          which Dodd and Lyeth v. Hoey, supra, stand is that Federal                  
          regulations, not local law, control when construing a Federal tax           
          statute unless the statute expressly or impliedly makes its                 
          operation dependent upon local law.  Petitioner's circumstances             
          do not present this issue.                                                  
               Petitioner quotes from California Bankers Association v.               
          Shultz, supra at 26, the following:                                         
               we think it important to note that the Act's civil and                 
               criminal penalties attach only upon violation of                       
               regulations promulgated by the Secretary; if the                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011