Ezel / IRS Rulings / 1043032
Chief Counsel Advice 1043032 Released October 29, 2010 Advice

Later authorities could change analysis of older TAMs and a PLR

Apply this to your situation

This page covers one taxpayer's ruling from 2010, which can't be cited as precedent. Ask about your situation and see what the current Code and IRS guidance say, with citations.

Currency note: this determination was released in 2010
Statutory amendments, regulation changes, court decisions, or later IRS guidance may have changed the analysis since then. Treat this page as historical context, not current tax advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, threshold, or position mentioned here.
Not precedent. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6110(k)(3), this written determination may not be used or cited as precedent. It resolved one taxpayer's situation on its specific facts, and identifying details were redacted by the IRS before release. The official IRS release (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source.
About this page: The plain-English summary and ruling snapshot below were written by Ezel based on the official IRS release. The full text is the IRS's own document.
View official IRS release (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Chief Counsel commented on whether arguments relying on technical advice memoranda and a private letter ruling should be discounted under IRC § 6110. The advice states that two TAMs predated Rev. Rul. 2005-40, so their analysis and result might differ under current authority. It also states that a 2008 PLR involved distinguishable facts and that a ruling written later would likely cite Rev. Rul. 2009-26 instead of an older ruling.

Ruling snapshot

  • Question: How should older TAMs and a 2008 PLR be treated when later revenue rulings and § 6110 limitations are considered?
  • Outcome: Advice given
  • Key authorities: IRC § 6110; Rev. Ruls. 2005-40 and 2009-26

Full text (IRS public release)

ID: CCA-422130-10 Number: 201043032
Release Date: 10/29/2010
Office: ----------------
UILC: 831.00-00

From: ------------
Sent: Thu 4/22/2010 1:40 PM
To: ---------------------------------------
Cc: -----------------------------
Subject: NOPA -------

After speaking to the author of the 2 TAMs and the reviewer of the 2008 PLR, I have the following comments:

In case people do not think that we should rely on 6110 to discount arguments that rely on TAMs and PLRs,

The TAMs predate Rev. Rul. 2005-40, the analysis and the result might be different today.

The 2008 PLR has very distinguishable facts. If we were to write the 2008 PLR today we would probably cite the 2009 reinsurance rev rul 2009-26 rather than the off point 1980 ruling.

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read what the IRS ruled for one taxpayer in 2010, and it can't be cited as precedent. Ezel checks the current Internal Revenue Code and IRS guidance and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.