- 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
10(...continued)
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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011