-79-
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had treated as
controlling. Here, the Commissioner was the unsuccessful party
in all of the cases holding that timely filing is not required
for a foreign corporation to claim its deductions and credits.
In addition, unlike the FCC, the Secretary through the disputed
regulations is attempting to overturn the outcome of those cases
through his general regulatory authority.
Fourth, AT&T Corp. v. Portland, supra, which the Supreme
Court declined to permit to “trump” the FCC ruling, had been
decided only approximately 5 years before Natl. Cable & Telecomm.
Association v. Brand X Internet Servs., supra. Here, Anglo-Am.
Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938), and
its progeny were decided approximately 50 years before the
disputed regulations were issued. Thus, in Natl. Cable the
Supreme Court was not faced with the question of whether a
longstanding judicial interpretation is entitled to more
deference than a recent judicial interpretation. Nor was that
Court faced with the question of the effect of the reenactment of
the underlying statute on a prior judicial interpretation. The
case of Natl. Cable also did not involve an agency that was
seeking to reverse course from a preexisting, decades old
regulatory position that was consistent with judicial precedents
of even greater antiquity.
Page: Previous 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011