- 122 -
general authority vested in the Secretary by section 7805,
whereas legislative regulations are issued pursuant to a specific
congressional delegation to the Secretary. Id.; Hefti v.
Commissioner, 97 T.C. 180, 189 (1991), affd. 983 F.2d 868 (8th
Cir. 1993). “An interpretive regulation may be contrasted to a
legislative regulation, one which is mandated specifically in the
statute and has the force and effect of law.” Matheson v.
Commissioner, 74 T.C. 836, 840 n.7 (1980).
In Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. at 38, we stated:
The regulations involved herein were promulgated
pursuant to the general authority granted to the
Secretary of the Treasury by section 7805(a) and not
pursuant to specific legislative authority, T.D. 8168,
1988-1 C.B. 80, 83; they are therefore interpretive.
The majority opinion in this case agrees with this conclusion,
and the Commissioner concedes that the 9T regulation is an
interpretive regulation. Majority op. p. 40. As such, even if
the statute were ambiguous, but see Chief Judge Wells’s dissent,
and assuming Congress delegated authority to the IRS to make
rules carrying the force and effect of law in this area, but see
Judge Swift’s dissent p. 104, it appears that by choosing to
issue the 9T regulation pursuant to section 7805 the Commissioner
did not issue the 9T regulation pursuant to a specific
congressional delegation authority having the force and effect of
law. See Tutor-Saliba Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 7;
Matheson v. Commissioner, supra at 840 n.7. Thus, the 9T
regulation is not entitled to Chevron deference; it is only
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