- 21 -
incarceration scenario (albeit of a child rather than an adult).
The Commissioner's application of Rev. Rul. 66-28 to a juvenile
incarceration included the principle that it is the existence of
any intent to change the principal place of abode that is
“determinative” in this particular circumstance.2 While it is
recognized that informal guidance such as a Service Center Advice
does not bind the Commissioner as a revenue ruling does under
Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157 (2002), such informal
guidance is relevant in determining the scope of the principles
in a revenue ruling. See id. at 173 n.12.
In these circumstances, absent a reasoned argument from
respondent that might distinguish Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, I do
not believe respondent should be permitted to maintain the
position he has taken in this case. Under Rauenhorst, I believe
petitioner is entitled to rely on Rev. Rul. 66-28, wherein the
Commissioner attributed little or no weight to the reasonableness
of an assumption of return. The analogies between the facts of
this case and those of Rev. Rul. 66-28 are close. Absences due
to extended illness or pretrial incarceration share significant
similarities. Both absences are essentially involuntary.
Moreover, both create particular difficulties in applying the
2 Notably, the Commissioner also treated this
“determinative” aspect of Rev. Rul. 66-28, 1966-1 C.B. 31, as
applicable in interpreting sec. 1.2-2(c)(1), Income Tax Regs.,
without regard to the fact that Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra, construed
sec. 1.152-1(b), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011