- 7 -
Circuit stated:
After a complete review de novo, we agree with the Tax
Court’s well-reasoned opinion, and affirm on the basis
of the analysis set forth therein. * * * Because we
have nothing of substance to add to the Tax Court’s
thorough analysis, further discussion is superfluous.
[Sutherland Lumber-Southwest, Inc. v. Commissioner, __
F.3d at __.]
The above quote applies to the case before us. No purpose would
be served by repeating the statutory analysis that led us to hold
that an employer’s deduction is not limited to the amount
reportable by its employees.
The doctrine of stare decisis generally requires that we
follow the holding of a previously decided case, absent special
justification. Sec. State Bank v. Commissioner, 111 T.C. 210,
213 (1998), affd. 214 F.3d 1254 (10th Cir. 2000). While
respondent has thoroughly rearticulated his arguments in support
of a different interpretation of the statute, we find nothing
therein that would cause us to refrain from applying the doctrine
of stare decisis in the instant case. Accordingly, we hold that
petitioner’s deduction for operation of the Gulfstream is in no
way limited by the value reportable by its employees.
Decision will be entered
under Rule 155.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: May 25, 2011