- 24 - regulations, did not undergo any public review or comment before its issuance. In accordance with the analysis under United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218 (2001), we decline to adopt the exception set forth in Rev. Rul. 90-44, supra. First, as we have discussed, the exception does not properly interpret the text of the statutes as written. See Commissioner v. Schleier, 515 U.S. 323, 336 n.8 (1995). Second, we find in the ruling neither adequate “thoroughness evident in its consideration” nor adequate “reasoning” as to the presence of the exception in the statutes. See Skidmore v. Swift & Co., supra at 140. The ruling simply states that the exception was included in the revenue ruling “in order to fulfill the congressional purpose underlying section 265(b)” and may be invoked “to clearly reflect the income of the financial institution and to prevent the evasion or avoidance of taxes”. Rev. Rul. 90-44, 1990-1 C.B. at 57. Third, the revenue ruling was issued many years after the enactment of the relevant statutes, approximately 8 years after the enactment of section 291(a)(3) and (e)(1)(B) and 4 years after the enactment of section 265(b). We hold that the numerator does not include the tax-exempt obligations purchased and owned by Investments and sustain petitioner’s reporting position. We have considered all of thePage: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: March 27, 2008