- 13 -
in section 1.163-9T(b)(2)(i)(A), Temporary Income Tax Regs.,
supra. The Courts of Appeals for the Fourth, Seventh, and Eighth
Circuits pointed to Congress’s failure to amend section
163(h)(2)(A) as additional evidence that the regulation is
reasonable. Kikalos v. Commissioner, 190 F.3d at 799 (7th Cir.);
Allen v. United States, 173 F.3d at 538 (4th Cir.); Miller v.
United States, 65 F.3d at 690 (8th Cir.).
We have considered the opinions of the Courts of Appeals for
the Fourth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth Circuits; those
opinions are entitled to all due respect. Lardas v.
Commissioner, 99 T.C. 490, 494 (1992). Appeal in the instant
case, however, lies to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
which has yet to address the issue presented herein.8
8 In Lardas v. Commissioner, 99 T.C. 490, 494-495 (1992),
we stated that, in Golsen v. Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 756-757
(1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), we
reasoned that, where a reversal would appear
inevitable, due to the clearly established position of
the Court of Appeals to which an appeal would lie, our
obligation as a national court does not require a
futile and wasteful insistence on our view.
* * * * * * *
It should be emphasized that the logic behind the
Golsen doctrine is not that we lack the authority to
render a decision inconsistent with any Court of
Appeals (including the one to which an appeal would
lie), but that it would be futile and wasteful to do so
where we would surely be reversed. Accordingly,
bearing in mind our obligation as a national court, see
Lawrence v. Commissioner, * * * [27 T.C. 713, 716-717
(continued...)
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011