- 15 -
congressional silence in response to a settled interpretation of
a federal statute provides powerful support for maintaining the
status quo. In statutory matters, judicial restraint strongly
counsels waiting for Congress to take the initiative in modifying
rules on which judges and litigants have relied.” Hibbs v. Winn,
542 U.S. ___, ___, 124 S. Ct. 2276, 2296 (2004) (Stevens, J.,
concurring); see Commissioner v. Noel’s Estate, 380 U.S. 678,
680-681 (1965).
This Court’s decision in Haar is consistent with the
Commissioner’s longstanding administrative position in Rev. Rul.
77-318, 1977-2 C.B. 45, that section 104(a)(4) does not apply to
a pension, annuity, or similar allowance received on account of
active service in a government organization other than the U.S.
Armed Forces.12 This Court’s decision in Haar was affirmed by
the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; no court has
expressly rejected it. As previously discussed, this Court has
consistently followed Haar and has applied its reasoning in many
cases. The principle of stare decisis strongly counsels against
our now undertaking to reexamine the well-settled pattern of
decision that has evolved in this Court and at least one Court of
Appeals, consistent with longstanding administrative guidance.
12 Rev. Rul. 77-318, 1977-2 C.B. 45, holds that an
individual may not exclude from gross income Civil Service
payments received for a disability retirement occasioned by
injuries sustained during active military service.
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