Peach v. Commissioner
United States Tax Court
Held: 1. Sec. 1.44C-2(h), Income Tax Regs., is valid; 2. The retroactive application of sec. 1.44C-2(h), Income Tax Regs., is not arbitrary as a general matter or as applied to petitioners; and 3. Statements in I.R.S. Publications 17 and 903, properly interpreted, are not contrary to the provisions of sec. 1.44C-2(h), Income Tax Regs.
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Scott, Judge-.
This case is before us on respondent’s motion for summary judgment. The issue raised by respondent’s motion is whether petitioners are entitled to an energy tax credit with respect to a water-source heat pump installed in 1980.
At the hearing on respondent’s motion, the parties agreed to all the facts necessary to a decision of the issue presented here. Since there is no issue of material fact in this case, its disposition on the basis of respondent’s motion for summary judgment is appropriate. Rule 121(b), Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure; Espinoza v.…
2Cases cited6 opinions
- Automobile Club of Mich. v. CommissionerSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- Espinoza v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
- Wing v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1983
- Russell Redhouse, Jr. v. Commissioner of Internal RevenueCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- Wendland v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1982
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by23 opinions
- Pagel, Inc. v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1988
- Newborn v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1990
- Hopp v. United StatesDistrict Court, S.D. Iowa · 1987
- Thorne v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1992
- Wagner v. CommissionerUnited States Tax Court · 1987
18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.