A planner is reviewing a proposed transaction for a client. The client's cousin obtained a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service two years ago approving an almost identical transaction, and the client now wants the planner to treat that ruling as settled law. A final Treasury regulation issued after the ruling reaches the opposite conclusion on the same point. How should the planner weigh these two authorities?
- AThe private letter ruling controls, because a ruling issued on identical facts binds the Service as to every taxpayer whose facts match those in the ruling.
- BThe Treasury regulation controls, because a private letter ruling binds the Service only as to the taxpayer who requested it and may not be cited as precedent by anyone else. Correct
- CThe two authorities rank equally, so the planner may adopt whichever position produces the lower tax provided the return is filed by its original due date.
- DNeither authority is binding until a court of original jurisdiction rules on the point, so the planner should advise the client to file the position and litigate it.
Why A is wrong: Tempting because a private letter ruling is genuine written guidance from the Service and does bind it, but that binding effect runs only to the taxpayer who requested the ruling and only on the facts submitted.
Why B is correct: Correct. A final Treasury regulation is an interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code with general application, while a private letter ruling answers one taxpayer's question and carries no precedential weight for a third party.
Why C is wrong: Tempting because both documents come from the same agency, but the sources of tax authority are ranked, and timely filing has no bearing on which authority governs a reporting position.
Why D is wrong: Tempting because litigation can settle a contested point, but a final Treasury regulation is authoritative from the moment it is issued, and advising a client into a dispute that the regulation already resolves against him is poor planning.