- 35 -
In sum, we hold that pursuant to the temporary regulation,
copyrighted computer software with a right to reproduce abroad does
not qualify as export property.
3. Validity of the Temporary Regulation
We now turn our attention to petitioner’s alternative argument
that the temporary regulation is invalid.
The temporary regulation was promulgated pursuant to the
general authority granted to the Secretary by section 7805(a), not
pursuant to specific legislative authority. Thus, it is
interpretive, see Jackson Family Found. v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 534
(1991), affd. 15 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 1994), and should be upheld if
it is found to “‘implement the congressional mandate in some
reasonable manner’”, United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546, 550
(1973) (quoting United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 307 (1967)).
We defer to a regulation if it is a reasonable and permissible
interpretation of the statute. See, e.g., Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v.
Commissioner, 523 U.S. 382, 389 (1998); National Muffler Dealers
Association, Inc. v. United States, 440 U.S. 472, 488-489 (1979).
It is not our function to decide what the best or most
advisable method would be to implement the Internal Revenue Code.
As the Supreme Court stated in United States v. Correll, supra at
307: “Congress has delegated to the Commissioner, not to the courts,
the task of prescribing ‘all needful rules and regulations for the
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011