U.S. Bancorp, Successor In Interest to West One Bancorp and Subsidiaries, formerly known as Moore Financial Group, Inc. - Page 14

                                       - 14 -                                         

               opinion, the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit                   
               also made an extensive analysis of the same factors.                   
               One of the judges on the Court of Appeals panel                        
                    No purpose would be served by repeating the                       
               statutory analysis that lead this Court and the Court                  
               of Appeals to decide that section 1281(a)(2) does not                  
               apply to loans made by banks in the ordinary course of                 
               business.  Suffice it to say that this matter has been                 
               thoroughly considered and decided.  The doctrine of                    
               stare decisis generally requires that we follow the                    
               holding of a previously decided case, absent special                   
               justification.  This doctrine is of particular                         
               importance when the antecedent case involves statutory                 
               construction.  Hesselink v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 94,                  
               99-100 (1991).  While respondent has skillfully                        
               rearticulated his arguments in support of a different                  
               interpretation of the statute, we find nothing therein                 
               that would cause us to refrain from applying the                       
               doctrine of stare decisis with respect to the section                  
               1281(a)(2) issue.  [Fn. ref. omitted.]                                 
               We agree, and decline to overrule Security Bank Minn. v.               
          Commissioner, supra, with respect to this issue.  Accordingly, we           
          hold that section 1281(a)(2), as interpreted by Security Bank               
          Minn. and applied in Security State Bank v. Commissioner, supra,            
          does not require the accrual of interest with respect to the                
          short-term consumer, commercial, and agricultural loans made by             
          IFNB to its customers.                                                      
          IV. Respondent's Second Argument:  Section 1281(a)(1) and OID               
               Respondent argues in the alternative that, even if we follow           
          Security Bank Minn. v. Commissioner, supra, the short-term                  
          obligation rules should still be applied to IFNB's loans, CD's,             
          and time deposits, for the following reason.  Respondent asserts            
          in this case that IFNB's loans and deposits were issued by the              

Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011