- 124 -
staff summary (even though the conference committee chose to
adopt language less restrictive than the staff summary) and on
the Blue Book (even though the Blue Book goes far beyond the
language of the conference committee report to insert ideas from
the staff summary that it previously suggested to the conference
committee, but which the conference committee rejected and even
though the Blue Book was published during the 100th Congress
while TRA 1986 was enacted during the 99th Congress). Majority
op. pp. 17-18, 35. For the reasons stated in Judge Thornton’s
concurring opinion, our opinion in Redlark, and Judge Laro’s
concurring opinion in Redlark, I find this reliance unpersuasive.
See also Judge Swift’s dissent p. 108.
The majority acknowledges that section 163(h)(2)(A) does not
compel the result contained in the 9T regulation but relies on
the Joint Committee staff summary and Blue Book to conclude the
9T regulation is a permissible construction. Majority op. pp.
47-52. This would be a slender reed on which to conclude that
the 9T regulation has the power to persuade and is entitled to
deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., supra, especially in
light of the acknowledgment that a reasonable interpretation of
section 163(h)(2)(A) is that income tax deficiency interest
attributable to nonemployee trade or business income should
properly be considered allocable to a trade or business and that
the pre-TRA 1986 case law also supports this conclusion. Kikalos
v. Commissioner, 190 F.3d at 797-798; Redlark v. Commissioner,
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