suggesting that there might not be any differences between Chevron and National Muffler, and that if there are any such differences they are "subtle”
How later courts described this case
- suggesting that there might not be any differences between Chevron and National Muffler, and that if there are any such differences they are "subtle”
- discussing the “checkered career” of Chevron deference in the tax arena
- questioning whether Chevron applies to interpretative Federal tax regulations
- discussing the review of Federal tax regulations under Natl. Muffler in relation to Chevron
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Gerber J., concurring: Although I concur in the majority’s result, for the reasons expressed in my dissenting opinions in Pacific First Fed. Sav. Bank v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. 101, 117 (1990), and Georgia Fed. Bank v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 105, 121 (1992), I continue to regard the questioned regulation as valid.
Parker, Jacobs, Wright, Parr, and Ruwe, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion.