- 4 - (3) Those with respect to which a penalty has been imposed at a 40 percent rate (i.e., a penalty for gross valuation misstatement under section 6662(b)(3) and (h)). (4) Those with respect to which a penalty has been imposed at a 75 percent rate (i.e., a penalty for fraud under section 6663). [Sec. 1.6664-3(b), Income Tax Regs.] Respondent's computation of the penalty is in accordance with these rules and the implementing examples. Petitioner offers an alternative computation which he claims complies with the statute. In reviewing a regulation, we consider two questions as set forth by the Supreme Court: First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. * * * if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. [Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842-843 (1984); fn. refs. omitted.] These principles were very recently reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, 523 U.S. , , 118 S. Ct. 1413, 1418 (April 21, 1998), with the additional admonition: the task that confronts us is to decide, not whether the Treasury regulation represents the best interpretation of the statute, but whether it represents a reasonable one. See Cottage Savings Assn. v. Commissioner, 499 U.S. 554, 560-561 (1991). * * *Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011