Estate of Eleanor R. Gerson, Deceased, Allan D. Kleinman, Executor - Page 44

                                        - 44 -                                        
          draw two negative inferences:  First, that the transitional rule            
          was not meant to apply to a limited power of appointment that ran           
          afoul of the vesting requirements; and second, and of more                  
          relevance here, that the transitional rule was not meant to apply           
          to the exercise of a general power of appointment under an                  
          otherwise grandfathered trust.                                              
               In short, giving effect to all its terms and considering its           
          origin and purpose, the transitional rule has a meaning                     
          sufficiently plain as to erase any doubt as to the validity of              
          the disputed regulations.5  Insofar as the statute might be                 
          thought to be ambiguous, to that extent it might be said to have            



               4(...continued)                                                        
          and Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Finance and the               
          Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means.  See 132 Cong.           
          Rec. S13952 (daily ed. Sept. 26, 1986) (colloquy between Senate             
          Committee on Finance Chairman Packwood and the ranking Member               
          Sen. Bentsen); 132 Cong. Rec. H8362 (daily ed. Sept. 25, 1986)              
          (colloquy between House Committee on Ways and Means Chairman                
          Rostenkowski and House Committee on Ways and Means Member Rep.              
          Andrews).                                                                   
               5 I agree with the conclusion, see majority op. p. 22, that            
          the Supreme Court’s statement in Natl. Cable & Telecomm.                    
          Association v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967 (2005),                
          regarding the circumstances in which a “prior judicial                      
          construction” might trump an “agency construction otherwise                 
          entitled to Chevron deference”, does not compel us to hold that             
          the disputed regulations are invalid in the wake of Simpson v.              
          United States, 183 F.3d 812 (8th Cir. 1999), or Bachler v. United           
          States, 281 F.3d 1078 (2002).  Under the rule of Golsen v.                  
          Commissioner, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), affd. 445 F.2d 985 (10th             
          Cir. 1971), this Court is not required to follow Simpson and                
          Bachler in this case, which is not appealable to either of the              
          circuits in which those cases arose.  In any event, Simpson and             
          Bachler did not address the validity of the disputed regulations.           




Page:  Previous  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  42  43  44  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  52  53  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011