- 23 -
authority vested in the Secretary by section 7805(a). Although
entitled to considerable weight, interpretative tax regulations
are accorded less deference than legislative regulations issued
under a specific grant of authority. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v.
Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843-844 (1984);
United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. 16, 24 (1982).
When this Court reviews an interpretative tax regulation, we
generally apply the analysis set forth by the Supreme Court in
Natl. Muffler Dealers Association v. United States, 440 U.S. 472
(1979). Under Natl. Muffler Dealers Association, an
interpretative regulation is valid if it implements a
congressional mandate in a reasonable manner. Id. at 476-477;
see United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., supra at 24 (quoting
United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 307 (1967)). In Natl.
Muffler Dealers Association v. United States, supra at 477, the
Supreme Court stated:
In determining whether a particular regulation
carries out the congressional mandate in a proper
manner, we look to see whether the regulation
harmonizes with the plain language of the statute, its
origin, and its purpose. A regulation may have
particular force if it is a substantially
contemporaneous construction of the statute by those
presumed to have been aware of congressional intent.
If the regulation dates from a later period, the manner
in which it evolved merits inquiry. Other relevant
considerations are the length of time the regulation
has been in effect, the reliance placed on it, the
consistency of the Commissioner’s interpretation, and
the degree of scrutiny Congress has devoted to the
regulation during subsequent re-enactments of the
statute.
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011