bulletin Internal Revenue›Introduction
Cumulative List of Actions Relating to Court Decisions Published in the Internal…
Internal Revenue Bulletin 1999-1 · 2026-10-03 edition · updated 2026-10-04 · United States
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 Moreover, the recommendation in the Action on Decision may be superseded by new legislation, regulations, rulings, cases, or Actions on Decisions.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 ACQUIESCES in the following decisions:
Golden Belt Telephone Cooperative v. Commissioner, 1
108 T.C. 498 (1997)
Paul A. Bilzerian v. United States, 2
86 F.3d 1067 (11th Cir. 1996), rev’g 887 F. supp. 1509 (M.D. Fla. 1995), re- manded sub nom. Steffen v. United States, 952 F. Supp. 779 (M.D. Fla. 1997)
McCormick v. Peterson, 3
CV93–2157 (E.D.N.Y. 1993)
Estate of Clara K. Hoover, Deceased, Yetta Hoover Bidegain, Personal Rep- resentative v. Commissioner, 4
69 F.3d 1044 (10th Cir. 1995)
Barry I. Fredericks v. Commissioner, 5
No. 96–7748 (3rd Cir. 1997)
The Commissioner DOES NOT ACQUIESCE in the following decisions:
Clark D. and Janis L. Pulliam v. Com- missioner, 6
T.C. 1997–274
Fluor v. United States, 7
126 F.3d 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
1 Acquiescence in result only relating to whether billing and collection services performed by a rural telephone cooperative on behalf of long-distance carriers constitute “communication services” as defined in Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(12)(B). 2 Acquiescence in result only relating to whether issuance of an erroneous refund following taxpayer’s payment of the original assessment revives that assessment to permit enforced collection of the amount erroneously refunded.
3 Acquiescence relating to whether the taxpayer was subject to the frivolous return penalty under section 6702.
4 Acquiescence relating to whether the election of special use valuation under I.R.C. section 2032A precludes a valuation that takes into account a minority interest discount under section 2031.
5 Acquiescence relating to whether the Court of Appeals erred in determining that the Service is equitably estopped from relying on a Form 872–A to indefinitely extend the period of limitations when the Service’s actions misled the taxpayer into believing that the form was not in effect..
6 Nonacquiescence relating to whether the distribution to a sole shareholder of the stock of a newly formed corporation qualified under section 355 of the Internal Revenue Code.
7 Nonacquiescence relating to whether the taxpayer owes interest under section 6601(a) on the underpayment of its 1982 tax liability, notwithstanding that such underpayment subsequently was eliminated by a carryback, under section 904(c), of excess foreign tax credits from its taxable year 1984.
1999–1 I.R.B. 5 January 4, 1999
Get a plain-English answer with a citation back to this text.
Ask AI about this code