- 23 -
according to its persuasiveness.” Id. at 221. In Skidmore v.
Swift & Co., supra at 140, the Court stated:
We consider that the rulings, interpretations and
opinions * * * while not controlling upon the courts by
reason of their authority, do constitute a body of
experience and informed judgment to which courts and
litigants may properly resort for guidance. The weight
of such a judgment in a particular case will depend
upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the
validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier
and later pronouncements, and all those factors which
give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control.
See also Christensen v. Harris County, 529 U.S. 576, 587 (2000)
(an agency’s interpretation reached without formal notice and
comment rulemaking is entitled to respect only when it has the
“power to persuade”); cf. Kort v. Diversified Collection Servs.,
Inc., 394 F.3d 530, 539 (7th Cir. 2005).
We conclude that we must evaluate the revenue ruling at hand
under the “power to persuade” standard set forth in Skidmore.
While respondent invites the Court to afford the ruling greater
judicial deference by asserting that the ruling was issued in the
same manner as regulations on the subject would have been, we
decline that invitation. Cf. Ind. Fam. & Soc. Servs. Admin. v.
Thompson, 286 F.3d 476, 480 (7th Cir. 2002). In addition to the
fact that the Commissioner’s procedural rules state specifically
that revenue rulings “do not have the force and effect of
Treasury Department Regulations”, sec. 601.601(d)(2)(v)(d),
Statement of Procedural Rules, we consider most significant the
fact that the revenue ruling, unlike most Treasury Department
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008