Court Opinion

ID: 9464224
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:27:50.745976+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:31.086090
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent on the following grounds:
(1) The appellants did not question the validity of the regulation in the Tax Court, nor do they challenge its validity on this appeal. In all fairness to the trial judge, we should not write on an issue which was not urged before him, nor should we write on the validity of the regulation without proper briefing and argument.
(2) The regulation was promulgated by the Commissioner almost forty years ago. Since that time the Congress has reenacted 26 U.S.C. § 631(a) on at least three occasions, using precisely the same language on when the fair market value of the timber should be fixed, the latest reenactment being in 1976. 90 Stat. 1732, 1733. Needless to say, we must assume that the Congress was familiar with the interpretation placed on the statute by the Commissioner. None*1304theless, it did not see fit to change the pertinent language of the statute. See Chemehuevi Tribe of Indians v. Federal Power Commission, 420 U.S. 395, 408-10, 95 S.Ct. 1066, 35 L.Ed.2d 279 (1975). The spectre of horribles suggested by the majority that the timber might be destroyed by fire, pest, or disease between January 1st and November is simply not presented by the facts in this case. See United States v. Ramsey, 431 U.S. 606, 612-614, 97 S.Ct. 1972, 1976-1977, 52 L.Ed.2d 617, n. 8.
I would affirm the judgment of the Tax Court.