-77-
The Court noted that its decisions in Neal v. United States,
516 U.S. 284 (1996), Lechmere, Inc. v. NLRB, 502 U.S. 527,
536-537 (1992), and Maislin Indus., U.S., Inc. v. Primary Steel,
Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 131 (1990), “allow a court’s prior
interpretation of a statute to override an agency’s
interpretation only if the relevant court decision held the
statute unambiguous.” Natl. Cable & Telecomm. Association v.
Brand X Internet Servs., supra at , 125 S. Ct. at 2700.
Given that the Supreme Court has historically reviewed
Federal tax regulations primarily under the reasonableness test
of Natl. Muffler Dealers Association v. United States, 440 U.S.
472 (1979), the question arises whether Natl. Cable & Telecomm.
Association v. Brand X Internet Servs., supra, which neither
cited Natl. Muffler nor involved a Federal tax regulation,
applies to Federal tax regulations. We do not decide that
question because we conclude that Natl. Cable is distinguishable
from this case and, thus, its holding is not controlling here.
While we take seriously the Supreme Court’s holding in Natl.
Cable, we likewise take seriously that Court’s discussion of its
rationale for, and the context of, that holding. After
considering that discussion, and the significant contrasts
between that case and the case before us, we are persuaded for
numerous reasons that the holding of Natl. Cable does not govern
here.
Page: Previous 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011