- 17 -
that regulations are not forthcoming cannot be a basis
for thwarting the legislative objective. It is well
established that the absence of regulations is not an
acceptable basis for refusing to apply the substantive
provisions of a section of the Internal Revenue Code.
* * *
Id. at 587. This Court reasoned that Congress had articulated
the “overall purpose” behind the statute in the legislative
history, and the taxpayer’s action was appropriate even in the
absence of regulations because the statute was self-executing.
Moreover, where the regulations merely provide “how” a
statutory provision applies, this Court has found the statutes to
be self-executing. In Estate of Neumann v. Commissioner, supra
at 218-219, the language in the statute’s command provision (that
is “The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes of this
chapter”) was contrasted with the language from certain other
statutes that provide that a statutory provision would apply
“only to the extent provided in regulations prescribed by the
Secretary.” See also Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. Commissioner,
supra; First Chicago Corp. v. Commissioner, supra. In Estate of
Neumann v. Commissioner, supra at 221, we concluded that
issuance of regulations is to be considered a
precondition to the imposition of a tax where the
applicable provision directing the issuance of such
regulations reflects a “whether” characterization * * *
and not where the provision simply reflects a “how”
characterization. * * *
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011