Opinion ID: 472233
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Validity of Treasury Regulations

Text: 23 Little did not challenge the validity of the Treasury Regulations in district court. Issues not raised below will generally not be considered on appeal. Grauvogel v. Commissioner, 768 F.2d 1087, 1090 (9th Cir.1985). We conclude that this case falls within one of the narrow exceptions for exercising discretion to hear such an issue. See Bolker v. Commissioner, 760 F.2d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.1985) (issue presented is purely one of law and ... the pertinent record has been fully developed). 24 Little claims that Equity Mortgage Corp. v. Loftus, 504 F.2d 1071 (4th Cir.1974), establishes a substantive right under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7425(d) to receive reimbursement for payments made to a senior lienor. He claims that this statutory right to reimbursement cannot be limited by requiring compliance with procedural regulations. 25 Under 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7805(a), the Secretary or his delegate shall prescribe all needful rules and regulations for the enforcement of this Title .... Little argues that, because Congress did not explicitly direct the Secretary to promulgate regulations implementing 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7425(d) or 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2410(d), the Treasury Regulations here are invalid. 26 Regulations promulgated under the Secretary's authority in Section 7805(a) if found to 'implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable manner,' must be upheld. United States v. Cartwright, 411 U.S. 546, 550, 93 S.Ct. 1713, 1716, 36 L.Ed.2d 528 (1973) (quoting United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299, 307, 88 S.Ct. 445, 449, 19 L.Ed.2d 537 (1967)). The courts are not in the business of administering the tax laws of the Nation. Id. That task has been delegated to the Secretary of the Treasury in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7805(a). Id. 27 Treasury Regulations 'must be sustained unless unreasonable and plainly inconsistent with the revenue statutes.'  Commissioner v. Portland Cement Co., 450 U.S. 156, 169, 101 S.Ct. 1037, 1045, 67 L.Ed.2d 140 (1981) (quoting Commissioner v. South Texas Lumber Co., 333 U.S. 496, 501, 68 S.Ct. 695, 698, 92 L.Ed. 831 (1948)). 28 Little has not shown that the procedures for requesting reimbursement are unreasonable or that requiring documentation for reimbursable expenses is plainly inconsistent with the redemption statutes. His challenge to the validity of the Treasury Regulations as applied here is rejected.