- 121 -
We have previously avoided, pre-Mead, the question of
whether temporary regulations promulgated without notice-and-
comment procedures are entitled to Chevron deference.
UnionBanCal Corp. v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 309, 316-317 (1999).
We also have previously questioned, pre-Mead, whether
Chevron applies to interpretive regulations. Cent. Pa. Sav.
Association v. Commissioner, supra at 391 (citing E.I. duPont de
Nemours & Co. v. Commissioner, 41 F.3d 130 (3d Cir. 1994), affg.
102 T.C. 1 (1994)). The question of what deference interpretive
regulations, including temporary regulations issued without
notice-and-comment procedures, are entitled needs to be answered
in light of Mead.
The first question in the Mead analysis is whether Congress
delegated authority to the agency to make rules carrying the
force and effect of law. United States v. Mead Corp., supra at
226-227; Pool Co. v. Cooper, supra at 177 n.3. The second
question is whether the agency invoked that authority. United
States v. Mead Corp., supra; Pool Co. v. Cooper, supra. In this
case, however, even assuming that we were to answer the first
question in the affirmative, we must answer the second question--
whether the agency invoked the authority delegated--in the
negative for the reasons set forth below.
Regulations are either legislative or interpretive in
character. Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 1, 7
(2000). Interpretive regulations are promulgated under the
Page: Previous 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011