Opinion ID: 1351725
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Deference to Be Given to Department's Interpretation

Text: As an initial matter, we must determine what level of deference to give to the Department's interpretation of § 005.01B(3). Generally, we give deference to an agency's interpretation of its own regulations. See Capitol City Telephone v. Nebraska Dept. of Rev., ante p. 515, 650 N.W.2d 467 (2002). We do not give an agency deference, however, if the interpretation it has given to its regulation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent. Id. Here, the Department is proposing an interpretation of § 005.01B(3) that is inconsistent with how it has previously advised taxpayers. When the taxpayers in this case requested their extensions, they were sent notices telling them the requests had been granted. The notices have a section labeled Due Date of Return. The date on this section is October 15, 1996. This indicates that when it sent the notices to the taxpayers, the Department did not draw the distinction it now does between a due date and additional time to file a return. When an agency offers an interpretation of a disputed regulation during litigation that is inconsistent with its prior statements and actions regarding the regulation, the interpretation is not entitled to deference. See Drake v. F.A.A., 291 F.3d 59 (D.C.Cir. 2002). See, also, INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U.S. 421, 446 n. 30, 107 S.Ct. 1207, 94 L.Ed.2d 434 (1987) ([a]n agency interpretation of a relevant provision which conflicts with the agency's earlier interpretation is `entitled to considerably less deference' than a consistently held agency view). Accordingly, we give no deference to the Department's interpretation of § 005.01B(3).