Found this on the net - Pub 17

[Questionmark_Y]

"Publication 17 - Introductory Material (Instruction for the 1040 Form)
________________________________________
Table of Contents

All material in this publication may be reprinted freely. A citation to Your Federal Income Tax (2006) would be appropriate.

The explanations and examples in this publication reflect the interpretation by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of:

• Tax laws enacted by Congress,
• Treasury regulations, and
• Court decisions.

However, the information given does not cover every situation and is not intended to replace the law or change its meaning.

THIS PUBLICATION COVERS SOME SUBJECTS ON WHICH A COURT MAY HAVE MADE A DECISION MORE FAVORABLE TO TAXPAYERS THAN THE INTERPRETATION BY THE IRS. UNTIL THESE DIFFERING INTERPRETATIONS ARE RESOLVED BY HIGHER COURT DECISIONS OR IN SOME OTHER WAY, THIS PUBLICATION WILL CONTINUE TO PRESENT THE INTERPRETATIONS BY THE IRS.

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p17/ar01.html#d0e467

Notice the term “interpretation by the IRS”?

Thus, if the courts have made a ruling that would save you money, nu-uh, the IRS does not interpret these cases in your favor. Don't like it? Take them to court."

[charlesa6]

Thanks for the link. It's Tax time.

[Petrous]

"Thus, if the courts have made a ruling that would save you money, nu-uh, the IRS does not interpret these cases in your favor. Don't like it? Take them to court."

Problem is, some courts rule for you, some against. When the courts in different sections of the US rule differently than the other, it finally requires SCOTUS to make the final decision.

If my lawsuit will win in New York but lose in California and I'm in NY, I'll file suit.

It makes sense that your interpretation may succeed sometimes and in other courts, lose. Weigh the wins and losses.

IF there were enough losses, you'd see IRS concede the point. Kind of like that telephone excise.