- 22 -
second set of proposed regulations was silent on this rule,
including whether the Commissioner was considering abandoning it,
we read nothing in the second set of proposed regulations that
would lead us to believe that the Commissioner was proposing to
retain the rule.4 Given the additional fact that the
Commissioner not only invited comments on both sets of the
proposed regulations, but held hearings as well, we do not
believe that commentators were deprived of their right to comment
on the matter included in section 1.469-4, Income Tax Regs. The
first and second set of proposed regulations fairly apprised
interested parties of the wide range of issues that the
Commissioner had to address in the final rules defining the word
"activity", and the fact that the Commissioner invited comments
on both sets of proposed regulations allowed commentators to
express their views on the final plan in a way that the
Commissioner could find convincing. The fact that persons who
were interested in the matter of section 1.469-4, Income Tax
4 Petitioners assert that agents of the Commissioner stated
publicly that the lack of an attribution rule, as it applied to C
corporations in the first set of proposed regulations, would be
retained in the final regulations. We give these assertions no
weight. Even assuming arguendo that the statements were made,
these oral statements are not binding on the Commissioner.
Martin's Auto Trimming, Inc. v. Riddell, 283 F.2d 503, 506 (9th
Cir. 1960); Darling v. Commissioner, 49 F.2d 111, 113 (4th Cir.
1931) (Government is not bound by agents acting beyond the scope
of their authority), affg. 19 B.T.A. 337 (1930); Fortugno v.
Commissioner, 41 T.C. 316, 323-324 (1963), affd. 353 F.2d 429
(3d Cir. 1965); see also Wilkinson v. United States, 157 Ct. Cl.
847, 304 F.2d 469, 474, 475 (1962).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011