- 3 -
1987-1 C.B. 720, provides that cases docketed in the Tax Court
“will be referred by District Counsel * * * to the Appeals
Division * * * for consideration of settlement unless the
statutory notice of deficiency was issued by Appeals.”
The flaw with the estate’s argument is that neither Rev.
Proc. 87-24, supra, nor section 601.106, Statement of Procedural
Rules, affords the estate a substantive right to take its case to
Appeals. It is well established that “general statements of
policy and rules governing internal agency operations or
‘housekeeping’ matters, which do not have the force and effect of
law, are not binding on the agency issuing them and do not create
substantive rights in the public.” Capitol Fed. Sav. & Loan
Association v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 204, 216-217 (1991) (citing
United States v. Will, 671 F.2d 963, 967 (6th Cir. 1982)
(Internal Revenue Manual); Einhorn v. DeWitt, 618 F.2d 347,
349-350 (5th Cir. 1980) (Statement of Procedural Rules); Smith v.
United States, 478 F.2d 398 (5th Cir. 1973) (Statement of
Procedural Rules); Rosenberg v. Commissioner, 450 F.2d 529, 531
(10th Cir. 1971), affg. T.C. Memo. 1970-201 (Statement of
Procedural Rules); Luhring v. Glotzbach, 304 F.2d 560 (4th Cir.
1962) (Statement of Procedural Rules)).
The estate relies on United States v. Heffner, 420 F.2d 809
(4th Cir. 1969). Heffner involved a criminal prosecution of a
taxpayer for income tax fraud. The IRS had issued and published
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011