A case should not be excluded from the S.O.P. category on the grounds that there appear to be jurisdictional defenses unless there is a fatal jurisdictional defect, for in that event we would not wish the case to be settled under any circumstances. As with the case of apparent jurisdictional defects, the relative strength or weakness of a particular case is not controlling in determining whether it should be classified S.O.P. The S.O.P. classification permits defense or settlement. It is not a procedure whereby a case is referred to the Department of Justice for settlement on any basis obtainable. If a case is a particularly strong one, it is presumed that the Department of Justice will so view it and either force the case to trial or will settle, if desirable, only on a basis consistent with the strength of the Government's position. S.O.P. classification is inappropriate for any case involving qualification of or deductions for employee benefit plans under I.R.C. section 401 through 418.
S.O.P. classification is inappropriate for all excise tax cases.
Those cases that should be classified Standard are, simply, those that do not fit into the S.O.P. classification. Continuing issues should be distinguished from issues that may merely recur from year to year because of the nature of the taxpayer's business or pattern of operation. A good example of a continuing issue is whether a certain expenditure must be capitalized or whether it may be depreciated or amortized. The resolution of the issue will affect all open and future years in which depreciation has been or will be claimed. In cases that merely recur from year to year, the resolution of any one year will not dispose of the issue for any other year.