Rev. Proc. 96-3, page 82.

Areas in which advance rulings will not be issued; Associate Chief Counsel (Domestic), Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations). This procedure provides a revised list of those provisions of the Code under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (Domestic) and the Associate Chief Counsel (Employee Benefits and Exempt Organizations) relating to matters where the Service will not issue advance rulings or determination letters. Rev. Procs. 95–3 and 95–50 superseded.

Rev. Proc. 96–7, page 185. Areas in which advance rulings will not be issued: Associate Chief Counsel (International). This procedure lists the subject matters under the jurisdiction of the Associate Chief Counsel (International) in which the Service will not issue advance letter rulings or determination letters. Rev. Proc. 95–7 superseded.

4

Cumulative List of Actions Relating to Court Decisions Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995

It is the policy of the Internal Revenue Service to announce at an early date whether it will follow the holdings in certain cases. An Action on Decision is the document making such an announcement. An Action on Decision will be issued at the discretion of the Service only on unappealed issues decided adverse to the government. Generally, an Action on Decision is issued where its guidance would be helpful to Service personnel working with the same or similar issues. Unlike a Treasury Regulation or a Revenue Ruling, an Action on Decision is not an affirmative statement of Service position. It is not intended to serve as public guidance and may not be cited as precedent.

Actions on Decisions shall be relied upon within the Service only as conclusions applying the law to the facts in the particular case at the time the Action on Decision was issued. Caution should be exercised in extending the recommendation of the Action on Decision to similar cases where the facts are different. Moreover, the recommendation in the Action on Decision may be superseded by new legislation, regulations, rulings, cases, or Actions on Decisions.

Prior to 1991, the Service published acquiescence or nonacquiescence only in certain regular Tax Court opinions. The Service has expanded its acquiescence program to include other civil tax cases where guidance is determined to be helpful. Accordingly, the Service now

may acquiesce or nonacquiesce in the holdings of memorandum Tax Court opinions, as well as those of the United States District Courts, Claims Court, and Circuit Courts of Appeal. Regardless of the court deciding the case, the recommendation of any Action on Decision will be published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin.

The recommendation in every Action on Decision will be summarized as acquiescence, acquiescence in result only, or nonacquiescence. Both ‘‘acquiescence’’ and ‘‘acquiescence in result only’’ mean that the Service accepts the holding of the court in a case and that the Service will follow it in disposing of cases with the same controlling facts. However, ‘‘acquiescence’’ indicates neither approval nor disapproval of the reasons assigned by the court for its conclusions; whereas, ‘‘acquiescence in result only’’ indicates disagreement or concern with some or all of those reasons. Nonacquiescence signifies that, although no further review was sought, the Service does not agree with the holding of the court and, generally, will not follow the decision in disposing of cases involving other taxpayers. In reference to an opinion of a circuit court of appeals, a nonacquiescence indicates that the Service will not follow the holding on a nationwide basis. However, the Service will recognize the precedential impact of the opinion on cases arising within the venue of the deciding circuit.

The announcements published in

the weekly Internal Revenue Bulletins are consolidated semiannually and annually. The semiannual consolidation appears in the first Bulletin for July and in the Cumulative Bulletin for the first half of the year, and the annual consolidation appears in the first Bulletin for the following January and in the Cumulative Bulletin for the last half of the year.

The Commissioner ACQUIESCE in the following decisions:

Baker, Willard K. & Irene L., ¹ 748 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1984) Kisling, Est. of, ² 32 F.3d 1222 (8th Cir. 1994) Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., ³ 102 T.C. 21 (1994) National Semiconductor Corp. & Con- solidated Subs. v. Commissioner, ⁴ T.C. Memo 1994–195 Seagate Technology, Inc. & Consoli- dated Subs., ⁵ 102 T.C. 149 (1994) Taisei Fire & Marine Inc. Co., Ltd., et al. v. Commissioner, ⁶ 104 T.C. 535 (1995) Trump Village v. Commissioner, ⁷ T.C. Memo 1995–281

The Commissioner does NOT ACQUIESCE in the following decisions: Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., ⁸ 90 T.C. 630 (1988) Louisiana Land & Exploration Co., ⁹ 102 T.C. 21 (1994) Milligan, Robert E., v. Commis- sioner, ¹⁰ 38 F.3d 1094 (9th Cir. 1994)

1Acquiescence relating to whether Rev. Rul. 80–173, 1980–2 C.B. 60, should be applied retroactively to disallow a section 162(a) deduction for flight training course expenses.

2Acquiescence relating to whether transfers of irrevocable fractional shares in a revocable trust to donees designated by decedent within the three-year period preceding the death of decedent are includible in decedent’s gross estate pursuant to sections 2035(d)(2) and 2038(a)(1) of the Code.

3Acquiescence in the issue relating to whether costs related to acquiring, transporting and installing gas processing equipment and the offshore modules that house such equipment are deductible as intangible drilling and development costs. Acquiescence in result in the issue relating to whether the Claus method used by plaintiff to recover elemental sulphur from hydrogen sulfide produced from an oil or gas well qualified as a mining process for percentage depletion purposes. Acquiescence ‘‘in result’’ means acceptance of the Court but disagreement with some or all the reasons assigned for the decision.

4Acquiescence in result relating to whether (i) prices paid by petitioner’s offshore Asian subsidiaries for silicon wafers manufactured by petitioner in the U.S., and incorporated by the former into electronic products, and (ii) the prices that petitioner paid the subsidiaries for the completed products were arm’s length. Acquiescence ‘‘in result’’ means acceptance of the Court but disagreement with some or all the reasons assigned for the decision.

5Acquiescence in result relating to whether certain royalties attributable to intangibles that petitioner transferred to its wholly-owned subsidiary, and the prices that petitioner paid the subsidiary for products manufactured by the latter, were arm’s length. Acquiescence ‘‘in result’’ means acceptance of the Court but disagreement with some or all the reasons assigned for the decision.

6Acquiescence relating to whether four Japanese reinsurance companies have agency permanent establishments in the U.S. because their U.S. agent was not ‘‘an agent of independent status’’ under Article 9(5) of the U.S.-Japan Tax Treaty.

7Acquiescence relating to whether the limitations of section 277 apply to a cooperative housing corporation described in section 216, which is also subject to the provisions of subchapter T of the Code.

5

Cumulative List of Actions Relating to Court Decisions Published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin from January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1995—Continued

sioner, ¹⁵ 994 F.2d 432 (8th Cir. 1993) Vulcan Materials Co. & Subsidiaries v. Commissioner, ¹⁶ 959 F.2d 973 (11th Cir. 1992)

Morganbesser, Marvin D., et al. v. U.S., ¹¹ 984 F.2d 560 (2d Cir. 1993) Placid Oil Co. v. IRS, ¹² 988 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1993) St. Jude Medical, Inc. v. Commis-

sioner, ¹³ 97 T.C. 457 (1991) (8th Cir. 1994) Sealy Power Ltd., ¹⁴ 46 F.3d 382 (5th Cir. 1995) Security Bank Minnesota v. Commis-

8Nonacquiescence relating to whether section 613A(e)(2) of the Code eliminates percentage depletion under section 613 for nonhydrocarbon minerals produced from an oil or gas well.

9Nonacquiescence relating to whether all income from the sales of oil, gas and sulphur are to be combined when calculating the taxable income from the property under section 613(a) of the Code, even though the oil and gas income is subject to a separate depletion regimen.

10Nonacquiescence realting to whether payments to a former insurance agent, which are based on the amount of compensation during the last twelve months as an agent, derive from a trade or business carried on by the individual, so as to be subject to tax under the Self-Employment Contributions Act (SECA).

11Nonacquiescence relating to whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in affirming the U.S. District Court for Connecticut, erred as a matter of law in determining that a multiemployer pension trust was a labor organization exempt under section 501(c)(5) of the Code.

12Nonacquiescence relating to whether the U.S. or the taxpayer bears the ultimate burden of proof in bankruptcy proceedings in which the taxpayer challenges a federal income tax claim arising from the disallowance ofdeductions.

13Nonacquiescence relating to whether section 1.861–8(e)(3) of the regulations is invalid as applied to DISC combined taxable income calculations.

14Nonacquiescence relating to whether an electrical generating facility that produced only de minimis amounts of electricity on a sporadic basis in 1984 due to functional deficiencies in its equipment ‘‘placed in service’’ was within the meaning of sections 46 and 167 of the Code.

15Nonacquiescence relating to whether a cash method bank that makes short-term loans with a stated interest rate to customers in the ordinary course of its business is subject to accrual of the interest on those loans under section 1281(a)(2) of the Code.

16Nonacquiescence relating to whether the term ‘‘accumulated profits’’ as used in the denominator of the section 902 deemed paid credit fraction before the Tax Reform Act of 1986 means all of the foreign corporation’s accumulated profits for the taxable year.

6