Rountree Cotton Co. - Page 10




                                       - 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