Proposed Comments

[Jimbo]

JP,

I appreciate your detailed mostly accurate response including somewht reversing your position and now using the word ruling instead of regulation in the first portion of your post, it appears our disagreement was "mostly" semantic but not entirely. You seem to see no difference between IRS rulings, procedures and regulations by lumping them all together you are still misinterpreting the subtle but vast differences. In order to help you and everone else and to show that if any "Regulation" is accepted by any Federal government agency it will in fact have the force of law I will copy a short portion of an explanation below of an IRS Regulation:

"Regulations"

Regulations are the IRS Commissioner's rules, approved by the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary's delegate, for the application and administration of the Internal Revenue laws. The purpose of regulations is to provide taxpayers, their representatives, and Service personnel with rules of general application so they may clearly understand the taxpayer's rights and duties under the law.

Regulations are promulgated by publishing in the Federal Register, and usually are published in the weekly Internal Revenue Bulletin. All persons concerned are, by reason of publication in the Federal Register, given notice of the official rules of the Department of the Treasury for the administration, application, and enforcement of the Internal Revenue laws.

In some cases the law requires that regulations be issued with respect to specific matters; in all other cases regulations are authorized by law to supply such detail concerning the administration of the provision of law and its interpretation as is appropriate to carry out the statutory enactment.

Regulations may be proposed, temporary, or final. Temporary or final regulations carry the approval of the Treasury Dept. and are issued as Treasury Decisions. Temporary regs may be combined with final regs in the same Treasury Decision, but they may not be combined in the same Regulations Section. Temporary regs are designated with a "T" as the final character in the section number, and the word "temporary" at the end of the section heading.

Final regulations carry the force and effect of law. Proposed regulations are the Service's position

Link To Detailed Explanation

Jimbo

[JPFisher55]

Good copying of what is a regulation, but even final IRS regulations must conform to the appropriate IRC statute, as interpreted by a court of law, to which it applies. The final regulation is still just the IRS' interpretation of the IRC statute and how the IRS will enforce that IRC statute. The IRS has no authority to create new tax law.

[Jimbo]

OOne of "those guys" I see, nver made a mistake in his life, honestly I was just rying to help but now I don't really care to point out your mistaken impressions any longer.

[ QUOTE ]
Good copying of what is a regulation, but even final IRS regulations must conform to the appropriate IRC statute, as interpreted by a court of law , to which it applies. The final regulation is still just the IRS' interpretation of the IRC statute and how the IRS will enforce that IRC statute.

[/ QUOTE ]

Completely innacurate!

[ QUOTE ]
The IRS has no authority to create new tax law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Partially correct, insofar any IRC code enacted by Congress authorizing the IRS to create new regulations to enforce that code once it completes the final approval stage it is equivalent to creating law.

Using your flawed logic no law exists at all unless it has been both challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the USA.

Jimbo

[Skallagrim]

Time to end this silly debate: most government regulations (all the ones pertinent here) are not laws, they are the government agency's interpretation/implementation of laws. If you believe the agency got that interpretation/implementation wrong, you can challenge it in court, and the court decides who is right. If the court agrees with you, then even if you violated the regulation you are not liable/guilty and the agency must change the regulation to agree with the court ruling. If the court agrees with the agency, then you did violate the law and are liable/guilty.

OK?

Skallagrim

[JPFisher55]

Skall, I hope you ended it. I doubt that you have in JIMBO's mind. SEC is one exception. Their regulations have the force of law. In other words, don't do a Reg A or Reg C offering without following the appropriate regulation and filing. I did participate in Reg D offering that was not formally filed but that is a safe harbor exemption.

[Jimbo]

[ QUOTE ]
Time to end this silly debate: most government regulations (all the ones pertinent here) are not laws, they are the government agency's interpretation/implementation of laws. If you believe the agency got that interpretation/implementation wrong, you can challenge it in court, and the court decides who is right. If the court agrees with you, then even if you violated the regulation you are not liable/guilty and the agency must change the regulation to agree with the court ruling. If the court agrees with the agency, then you did violate the law and are liable/guilty.

OK?

Skallagrim

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your helpful attempt, I have stated that Regulations have the full force and effect of a law (not that they are a Federal Statute even though for all practical applications there is little difference) and it appears you agree, I just don't think JP can inderstand the difference.

Jimbo

[TheEngineer]

Thanks Skallagrim. It sounds settled to me. Now we can all move forward to discussing the regulations at hand.

[Skallagrim]

"Thanks for your helpful attempt, I have stated that Regulations have the full force and effect of a law (not that they are a Federal Statute even though for all practical applications there is little difference) and it appears you agree, I just don't think JP can inderstand the difference.

Jimbo "

Because I, like TE, want this thread back on track, let me point out, one final time, the distinction: A regulation can be "wrong" - a law cannot (though it can be unconstitutional). If congress passes a law saying you cant send money to company x, but you do it anyway, you cant claim in court "hey that was a mistake, Congress really meant company z." On the other hand, say Congress passes a law, like the ones that we are concerned with, that says you cant send money to an online gaming company, regulations to follow; the regulations come out and say company x is an online gaming company. You send money to company x and are charged with violating the law. YOU CAN CLAIM THAT THE REGULATION GOT IT WRONG AND COMPANY X IS NOT REALLY "AN ONLINE GAMING COMPANY" AS CONGRESS INTENDED THE LAW. A court can hear that claim, and a court can agree with you. In that sense (only) regulations do not have the same full force and effect as laws.

Skallagrim

[Jimbo]

I apologize on sidetracking the main issue. After your thourough explanation Skall then might I ask why anyone here should care what the regulations state?

If I understand you correctly why shouldn't we just wait, challenge it in court then allow them to determine that the Regulation is "wrong". Is the advantage that large to have a Regulation written in our favor even if it obviously is not what Congress intended?


Jimbo

[Skallagrim]

Jimbo, if I didnt see that you already have over 4,000 posts I would call you a troll at this point.

It is pretty obvious that having favorable regulations in the first instance is preferable to having to challenge regulations in court, isnt it?

Skallagrim