# Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, Ltd. Liability Co. v. Commissioner > United States Tax Court · May 6, 2010 · 134 T.C. 211 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887533 ## Case - **Full name:** INTERMOUNTAIN INSURANCE SERVICE OF VAIL, LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, THOMAS A. DAVIES, TAX MATTERS PARTNER v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, - **Court:** United States Tax Court - **Decided:** May 6, 2010 - **Citations:** 134 T.C. 211; 134 T.C. No. 11; 2010 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 14 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Cohen - **Judges:** Wherry, Cohen, Halpern, Holmes, Colvin, Wells, Vasquez, Goeke, Kroupa, Paris, Gustafson, Morrison, Gale, Thornton, Marvel - **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - **Red flag:** Reversed on other grounds by Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 650 F.3d 691 (2011). - Negative treatments: 1 - Distinguished by: 0 - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887533 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - explaining that because “the parties [i.e., including Intermountain] refer to the temporary regulations [interpreting sections 6501(e)(1)(A) and 6229(c)(2)] in tandem . . . we will follow the parties’ lead and refer to the temporary regulations in tandem” - rejecting the IRS's argument as circular and contrary to the plain language of the regulations - declining to engage in a “hypothetical” inquiry to determine the applicable limitations period because when urging the same argument, the government’s interpretation was “irreparably marred by circular, result-driven logic” ## Opinion text Cohen, J., concurring: I concur in the result in this case. I would reach the same result, however, on narrower grounds relating to motions to vacate and reconsider or untimely motions to amend pleadings. Moreover, I would adopt petitioner’s distinction of Alioto v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2008-185 , emphasizing the difference between congressional action there and what occurred here. I would defer discussion of the difficult and divisive issues regarding retroactive regulations, temporary regulations promulgated without notice and an opportunity for comment, and the degree of deference to which these regulations and Treasury regulations generally are entitled. Many cases to be decided in the future, including those now on appeal, will necessarily present those issues. This petitioner should not bear the burden of relitigating this case on a playing field unilaterally redesigned by the adverse party after petitioner has prevailed at this level. Gale, Thornton, and Marvel, JJ., agree with this concurring opinion. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9887533. Public record. Not legal advice.