- 30 -
WELLS, C.J., dissenting. I respectfully dissent. In the
instant case, the majority opinion states that it will follow our
opinion in Duke Energy Natural Gas Corp. v. Commissioner, 109
T.C. 416 (1997), which was reversed by the United States Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 172 F.3d 1255 (10th Cir. 1999).
In rejecting the plain language analysis of Rev. Proc. 87-56,
1987-2 C.B. 674 by the Court of Appeals, however, the majority
opinion in the instant case does not rely on this Court’s
rationale in Duke Energy Natural Gas Corp. Rather, the majority
injects yet another rationale, based upon its reading of the
regulations, to decide that petitioner must depreciate its
gathering system using a 15-year recovery period instead of a 7-
year recovery period. While I agree with Judge Foley’s dissent,
I have an additional point I would like to raise. Revenue
procedures are published to guide taxpayers, who are permitted to
rely on them. We should not read an ownership requirement into
Rev. Proc. 87-56, 1987 C.B. 674, where its plain language does
not require it.
In section 167(m), Congress delegated respondent broad
powers to promulgate regulations to determine the class lives of
property used in the natural gas industry. Respondent
promulgated regulations pursuant to that authority and indicated
that the class guidelines would be published pursuant to that
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011