- 19 -
he exercised any discretion afforded to him by section 446(b) or
482. Instead, as discussed above, the linchpin of respondent’s
arguments is that the statutes on their face require that the
basis of Peoples’ Investments stock be included in the
denominator and that the portion of that basis attributable to
the bases of Investments’ tax-exempt obligations is therefore
also included in the numerator.
Lastly, respondent observes, the Commissioner has issued
Rev. Rul. 90-44, 1990-1 C.B. 54, interpreting the applicable
statutes to provide that the tax-exempt obligations of a
subsidiary may be taken into account in calculating the numerator
for a parent bank. Respondent asserts that the Commissioner
issued this ruling under the same formal procedures that he would
have been required to follow had he prescribed regulations on the
subject. Respondent argues that the revenue ruling is entitled
to “judicial respect” as “persuasive precedent that should be
followed unless unreasonable”.
While we believe that the Commissioner’s interpretation as
set forth in Rev. Rul. 90-44, supra, is entitled to consideration
by this Court, we decline respondent’s invitation to equate the
authority of the ruling with that of a regulation or otherwise to
give the ruling the degree of deference that is typically
afforded to regulations under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., supra, and its progeny. As explained below,
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008