- 38 -
Previously, in similar situations, we have treated
respondent's position in a revenue ruling as a concession of the
issue. See Walker v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 537, 550 (1993);
Norwood v. Commissioner, 66 T.C. 467, 469 (1976); Merritt v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1995-44; Stalcup v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1995-43; Burleson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1994-130;
Nikkila v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-628; Boice v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-627; Callison v. Commissioner, T.C.
Memo. 1993-626; see also Alumax Inc. v. Commissioner, 109 T.C.
133, 163 n.12 (1997) (although revenue rulings are not regarded
as precedent in this Court, as they merely represent the position
of the Commissioner on a particular issue, the public generally
has the right to rely on positions taken by the Commissioner in
revenue rulings), affd. 165 F.3d 822 (11th Cir. 1999); American
Campaign Academy v. Commissioner, 92 T.C. 1053, 1070 (1989) (it
seems self-evident that in general a taxpayer may rely on a
revenue ruling where parallel facts place the ruling in the
posture of a concession by the Commissioner as to the analogous
taxpayer); Nissho Iwai Am. Corp. v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 765,
778 (1987) ("The public has a right to rely on positions taken by
10(...continued)
in the hands of the transferee is subject to the allowance for
depreciation. This section is not applicable in the instant case
because Cascade and Lea are not related persons as defined under
the applicable sections. See sec. 1239(b) and (c), I.R.C. 1954
(as amended).
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011