Cynthia L. Rowe - Page 36

                                       - 36 -                                         
          it should explain how it is consistent with Hein, which I read as           
          disregarding a multiple factor analysis in favor of establishing            
          the lack of evidence of intent to change the place of abode as              
          the sole deciding factor.                                                   
               The Commissioner’s acquiescence in Hein, to say the least,             
          muddies the waters.                                                         
               G.  Rauenhorst v. Commissioner                                         
               In Rauenhorst v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 157 (2002), we                 
          refused “to allow * * * [IRS] counsel to argue the legal                    
          principles of * * * opinions against the principles and public              
          guidance articulated in the Commissioner's currently outstanding            
          revenue rulings.”  Id. at 170-171.  The concurring opinions                 
          would, explicitly, in the case of Judge Gale, and, implicitly, in           
          the case of Judge Goeke, invoke Rauenhorst to foreclose                     
          respondent from disavowing his acquiescence in Hein v.                      
          Commissioner, supra, and his ruling, Rev. Rul. 66-28, supra.                
               First, I must point out the respondent has disavowed                   
          neither.  This is a fully stipulated case, the parties did not              
          file briefs, there was no argument, and respondent’s position in            
          his trial memorandum disavowed nothing.                                     
               Second, because of the boilerplate accompanying his                    
          acquiescence, respondent’s acquiescence in Hein is ambiguous as             
          to what, exactly, he is acquiescing, other than the conclusion              
          reached:  The Commissioner’s acquiescence “does not necessarily             

Page:  Previous  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011