- 10 -
loans were made. We consider each of petitioner’s contentions
separately.
The Failure To Issue Final Regulations--Petitioner contends
that the Government’s failure, for almost 15 years, to issue
final or permanent regulations as mandated by Congress in section
7872(h)(1) was to petitioner’s detriment.4 That section contains
the requirement that the Secretary prescribe regulations in
several broad areas, including for the
purpose of assuring that the positions of the borrower
and lender are consistent as to the application (or
nonapplication) of * * * [section 7872] and * * *
exempting * * * transactions the interest arrangements
of which have no significant effect on any Federal tax
liability of the lender or the borrower.
Sec. 7872(h)(1)(B) and (C). Petitioner contends that if final
regulations had been promulgated, it would have been to its
benefit. Petitioner, however, has not identified any particular
benefit that would have been conferred, the substance of any
regulations envisioned by petitioner, or the reason(s) for such
regulations.
The Commissioner, during 1985 and before the time the loans
herein were made, published proposed regulations. See secs.
4 Petitioner’s argument is obscure in that no explanation is
provided as to how the issuance of the final regulations would
have provided a better situation for petitioner or changed the
outcome of this case. It is more likely than not that
respondent’s litigating position and regulation(s) would have
been equivalents. Petitioner’s concern about the absence of
final regulations is also less compelling where, as here, some
guidance was provided by the issuance of proposed regulations.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011