-67-
“the statute clearly provides for the denial of deductions and
credits if returns are not filed in a timely manner”, see
Preamble of T.D. 8322, 1990-2 C.B. at 172, flies in the face of
the judiciary’s prior holdings that the relevant text does not
include a timely filing requirement and the like interpretation
by the ABAST and the other commentators referenced in the
preamble to the regulations.23 The Secretary’s statement is even
a departure from his previous interpretation set forth in the
1957 regulations.24 The 1957 regulations make no mention of a
timely filing requirement but allow a resident foreign
corporation to deduct its expenses if it files a true and
accurate Federal income tax return in accordance with section
6012 and the regulations thereunder. We also note as to our
analysis under Natl. Muffler Dealers Association v. United
States, supra, that the disputed regulations had only been in
effect for approximately 3 years as of the first year in issue.
23 In fact, if anything is “clear”, it is that the statute
does not contain any time requirement and that the Secretary’s
inclusion of one in the disputed regulations is ultra vires.
24 Of course, the mere fact that the Secretary has changed
his interpretation of a statutory term does not necessarily mean
that the latter interpretation is invalid. See Chevron U.S.A.,
Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. at 863-864;
Dickman v. Commissioner, 465 U.S. 330, 343 (1984). Courts should
accord considerably less deference, however, to an agency’s
statutory interpretation that conflicts with the agency’s
previous interpretation of the same statute. See Pauley v.
BethEnergy Mines, Inc. 501 U.S. 680, 698 (1991); INS v.
Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446 n.30 (1987).
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011