- 18 -
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice” are not
binding upon the agency. Id. at 301. Courts have long
recognized the distinction between mandatory procedures, which
are binding on the agency, and directory procedures, which are
not. See Cleveland Trust Co. v. United States, 421 F.2d 475 (6th
Cir. 1970); Geurkink v. United States, 354 F.2d 629 (7th Cir.
1965); Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560 (4th Cir. 1962);
Collins v. Commissioner, supra; Notaro v. United States, 71 AFTR
2d 93-659, 93-1 USTC par. 50,030 (N.D. Ill. 1992); First Fed.
Sav. & Loan Association v. Goldman, 58 AFTR 2d 86-5612, 86-2 USTC
par. 9624 (W.D. Pa. 1986).
We are satisfied under the weight of authority that we need
not reexamine the well-established law to this effect. However,
for purposes of completeness, we do address petitioner’s argument
that respondent violated respondent’s own reopening procedures,
so as to demonstrate the inapplicability of any isolated cases in
which the Commissioner’s notice was arguably held invalid for
failure to follow his own reopening procedures. See, e.g.,
Estate of Michael ex rel. Michael v. Lullo, 173 F.3d 503 (4th
Cir. 1999). We conclude that in the case at hand respondent
satisfied at least one of the criteria under his procedures for
reopening a closed case.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011