Swallows Holding, Ltd. - Page 22

                                        -110-                                         

               Upholding this regulation should be almost trivially easy.             
          “So long as the Commissioner issues regulations that ‘implement             
          the congressional mandate in some reasonable manner,’ * * * we              
          must defer to the Commissioner’s interpretation.  Only if the               
          code has a meaning that is clear, unambiguous, and in conflict              
          with a regulation does a court have the authority to reject the             
          Commissioner’s reasoned interpretation and invalidate the                   
          regulation.”  Redlark v. Commissioner, 141 F.3d 936, 939 (9th               
          Cir. 1998), revg. 106 T.C. 31 (1996).  For the Secretary to                 
          issue a regulation giving a clear 18-month grace period doesn’t             
          contradict anything in the Code, at least anything clearly and              
          unambiguously in the Code.2                                                 

               2 Our Court has met with limited success in finding                    
          regulations unreasonable after the extensive review of the sort             
          we do today.  See Pac. First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Commissioner, 94             
          T.C. 101 (1990) (invalidating sec. 1.593-6(b)(1)(iv), Income Tax            
          Regs. after plenary review of statute and legislative history),             
          revd. 961 F.2d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 1992) (“we cannot usurp the               
          Treasury’s authority and invalidate the regulation unless it is             
          an unreasonable construction”), disagreed with by Peoples Fed.              
          S&L v. Commissioner, 948 F.2d 289, 300 (6th Cir. 1991) (“a court            
          may not substitute its own construction for the reasonable                  
          interpretation of an agency”), disagreed with again by Bell Fed.            
          Sav. & Loan Association v. Commissioner, 40 F.3d 224,227 (7th               
          Cir. 1994), revg. T.C. Memo. 1991-368 (“choice among reasonable             
          interpretations is for the Commissioner, not the courts”), and              
          finally abrogated, Cent. Pa. Sav. Association & Subs. v.                    
          Commissioner, 104 T.C. 384 (1995); see also Redlark v.                      
          Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31 (1996) (invalidating sec. 1.163-                  
          9T(b)(2)(i)(A), Temporary Income Tax Regs., 52 Fed. Reg. 48409              
          (Dec. 22, 1987) after plenary review of statute and legislative             
          history), revd. 141 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 1998) (using language                
          quoted in text above), disagreed with by Allen v. United States,            
                                                             (continued...)           





Page:  Previous  100  101  102  103  104  105  106  107  108  109  110  111  112  113  114  115  116  117  118  119  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011