Swallows Holding, Ltd. - Page 52

                                        -138-                                         

               After Mead, I don’t think it possible to draw distinctions             
          between the deference owed tax regulations issued under section             
          7805(a) and those issued under more specific authority.17  See              
          Boeing Co. v. United States, 537 U.S. 437, 448 (2003) (dismissing           
          dispute over distinctions between general and specific authority            
          regulations because both must be treated with deference).                   
               If applying Chevron instead of National Muffler would lead             
          to a different result, this discussion might still not matter--             
          National Muffler (and the pre-Chevron cases that relied on it,              
          United States v. Vogel Fertilizer Co., 455 U.S. 16 (1982); Rowan            
          Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247 (1981) were all tax cases,              


               16(...continued)                                                       
          U.S.C. sec. 156 (“authority from time to time to make, amend, and           
          rescind * * * such rules and regulations as may be necessary”)];            
          Sullivan v. Everhart, 494 U.S. 83 (1990)[issued under 42                    
          U.S.C.(a) 401 et seq. (Secretary authorized to “make rules and              
          regulations and to establish procedures not inconsistent with               
          this subchapter, which are necessary”)]; Massachusetts v. Morash,           
          490 U.S. 107 (1989)[issued under 29 U.S.C. sec. 1135 (“the                  
          Secretary may prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or           
          appropriate”)]; K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281                 
          (1988)[issued under 19 U.S.C. sec. 1526(d)(4) (“Secretary may               
          prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary”)].                
               17 See also Vermuele, “Mead in the Trenches,” 71 Geo. Wash.            
          L. Rev. 347, 350 (2003) (notice-and-comment rulemaking a safe-              
          harbor category); but see Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd.,           
          376 F.3d 118, 132 n.5 (2d Cir. 2004); Merrill, “The Mead                    
          Doctrine: Rules and Standards, Meta-Rules, and Meta-Standards,”             
          54 Admin. L. Rev. 807, 814-15 (2002) (notice-and-comment                    
          rulemaking begets Chevron deference only if regulation intended             
          to have force of law).  (That distinction wouldn’t matter here,             
          because general authority tax regulations are intended to have              
          the force of law.)                                                          





Page:  Previous  124  125  126  127  128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  136  137  138  139  140  141  142  143  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011