- 12 -
an interpretive regulation sets only “the framework for judicial
analysis; it does not displace it.” United States v. Cartwright,
411 U.S. 546, 550 (1973). Under the traditional standard of
review, interpretive regulations are to be found valid if they
“‘implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable
manner’”. National Muffler Dealers Association, Inc. v. United
States, 440 U.S. 472, 476 (1979) (quoting United States v.
Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 307 (1967)).
A regulation may not contradict the unambiguous language of
a statute. See Citizen’s Natl. Bank v. United States, 417 F.2d
675 (5th Cir. 1969); Hefti v. Commissioner, 97 T.C. 180, 189
(1991), affd. 983 F.2d 868 (8th Cir. 1993). Unless an
interpretive regulation is unreasonable and plainly inconsistent
with the statute, it should be sustained. See Bingler v.
Johnson, 394 U.S. 741, 750 (1969). However, even if a regulation
does not directly contradict the language of the statute it
purports to interpret, the regulation may still be invalid if it
is fundamentally at odds with or inconsistent with the statute’s
origin and purpose.4 See United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co.,
4 We are mindful that the choice among reasonable statutory
interpretations is for the executive branch of Government and not
the courts. See National Muffler Dealers Association, Inc. v.
United States, 440 U.S. 472, 488 (1979). The issue is whether
the Secretary’s interpretation of the statute is a reasonable
one, not whether it is the best or only one. See Brown v. United
States, 890 F.2d 1329, 1338 (5th Cir. 1989). When the regulation
implements in some reasonable manner the congressional intent
(continued...)
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