- 36 -
enforcement’ of the Internal Revenue Code.” The delegation helps
guarantee that the rules will be written by “masters of the
subject.” United States v. Moore, 95 U.S. 760, 763 (1877).
In determining whether the Secretary’s interpretation of a
statute is a reasonable one, rather than the best or only one, see
Atlantic Mut. Ins. Co. v. Commissioner, supra, we are not at liberty
to strike down the regulation even if the taxpayer offers a more
attractive statutory interpretation, see United States v. Vogel
Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. 16, 26 (1982); Brown v. United States, 890
F.2d 1329, 1338 (5th Cir. 1989).
The parties agree that the standard in National Muffler Dealers
Association, Inc. v. United States, supra at 477,7 is appropriate in
7 National Muffler Dealers Association, Inc. v. United
States, 440 U.S. 472, 477 (1979), states, in pertinent part:
In determining whether a particular regulation
carries out the congressional mandate in a proper
manner, we look to see whether the regulation
harmonizes with the plain language of the statute, its
origin, and its purpose. A regulation may have
particular force if it is a substantially
contemporaneous construction of the statute by those
presumed to have been aware of congressional intent.
If the regulation dates from a later period, the manner
in which it evolved merits inquiry. Other relevant
considerations are the length of time the regulation
has been in effect, the reliance placed on it, the
consistency of the Commissioner’s interpretation, and
the degree of scrutiny Congress has devoted to the
regulation during subsequent re-enactments of the
statute. [Citations omitted.]
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