U.S. Bancorp, Successor In Interest to West One Bancorp and Subsidiaries, formerly known as Moore Financial Group, Inc. - Page 13

                                       - 13 -                                         

          Respondent has not brought to our attention any "prudential and             
          pragmatic considerations", see Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505             
          U.S. 833, 854 (1992), that would lead us to conclude that the               
          principle of stare decisis should not hold sway.11  See also                
          Helvering v. Hallock, 309 U.S. 106, 119 (1940).                             
               As we stated in Security State Bank v. Commissioner, 111               
          T.C. at 213-214:                                                            
                    Security Bank Minn. v. Commissioner [citation                     
               omitted] was a Court-reviewed opinion.  The majority                   
               opinion contains an extensive analysis of the statute,                 
               its evolution, the context in which it appears, and its                
               legislative history.  There was a dissenting opinion                   
               which was joined by five Judges.  In affirming our                     

          agricultural loans at issue in Security Bank. Minn. v.                      
          Commissioner, 98 T.C. 33 (1992), affd. 994 F.2d 432 (8th Cir.               
          1993) (and in Security State Bank v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 210             
          (1998)), provided for payments of interest as well as principal             
          only at maturity.  Even though respondent’s arguments in Security           
          Bank Minn. arguably are more directly applicable to the loans to            
          customers in the case at hand than they were to the loans in                
          Security Bank Minn. and Security State Bank--after all, the                 
          reference to “any interest payable on the obligation” would seem            
          to apply directly to the interest payable monthly and quarterly             
          in the case at hand, as opposed to the interest payable at                  
          maturity in Security Bank Minn. and Security State Bank, which              
          seems more like OID--this does not change our conclusion that all           
          respondent has done in mounting his primary argument is to ask us           
          to overrule Security Bank Minn., as stated in the text.                     
               11 Indeed, those considerations point in the other                     
          direction.  The issues in this case have limited significance in            
          subsequent years because of the enactment of sec. 448, requiring            
          C corporations, including large banks such as IFNB, with average            
          annual gross receipts of more than $5 million, to switch to the             
          accrual method of accounting, effective for 1987 and subsequent             
          years.  Petitioner observes that our ruling in this matter will             
          not apply to petitioner for any other tax year and is not likely            
          to apply to any other large commercial bank.                                

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011