- 14 -
characterization as a legislative regulation. Cf. Batterton v.
Francis, 432 U.S. 416, 425 (1977); Levesque v. Block, 723 F.2d
175, 183 (1st Cir. 1983).
As a general proposition, temporary regulations are entitled
to the same deference we accord final regulations. See Schaefer
v. Commissioner, 105 T.C. 227, 229 (1995); Peterson Marital Trust
v. Commissioner, supra at 797; Truck & Equip. Corp. v.
Commissioner, 98 T.C. 141, 149 (1992). The Temporary Regulation
was promulgated without notice and public comment procedures.8
Petitioner argues that the Temporary Regulation therefore is not
entitled to Chevron deference, citing Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v.
8 The Treasury Decision in which the Temporary Regulation
was promulgated explained the absence of notice and public
comment procedures as follows:
There is a need for immediate guidance with respect to
the provisions contained in this Treasury decision. For
this reason, it is found impracticable to issue this
Treasury decision with notice and public procedure under
subsection (b) of section 553 of Title 5 of the United
States Code * * *. [T.D. 7991, 1985-1 C.B. 71, 81.]
Under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. sec.
553(b)(3)(B) (1984), notice and public comment procedures are not
required “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates
the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the
rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Petitioner does not contend that the Temporary Regulation is
invalid for failure to comply with notice and public comment
procedures or to meet the requirements of the good cause
exception cited above. Accordingly, we do not reach these
issues.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011