2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*40 Decision will be entered under Rule 155 in docket No. 14496-99.
During the years in issue, Ps lived and worked on Johnston
Island, a U.S. insular possession. Ps claim that, under sec.
they received for services they performed on that island.
HELD: Ps may not exclude from their gross income under sec.
because that island is not a specified possession as defined in
Alternatively, Ps claim that, under
gross income up to $ 70,000 of the compensation they earned on
Johnston Island.
HELD: Ps may not exclude from gross income under
I.R.C., the compensation they earned on Johnston Island during
the years in issue because Johnston Island is not a foreign
country within the meaning of2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*41
2(g) and
117 T.C. 95">*95 OPINION
MARVEL, JUDGE: These cases were submitted fully stipulated pursuant to Rule 122. 2 In separate notices of deficiency, respondent determined the following deficiencies with respect to petitioners' Federal income tax returns:
JOSEPH D. SPECKING, DOCKET NO. 12010-99
Year Deficiency
____ __________
1995 $ 8,522
117 T.C. 95">*96 1996 11,531
1997 2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*42 10,173
Eric N. Umbach, 3 docket No. 12348-99
Year Deficiency
____ __________
1995 $ 17,844
1996 18,802
1997 20,025
ROBERT J. HAESSLY, DOCKET NO. 14496-99
Year Deficiency
____ __________
1995 $ 17,859
Petitioners filed separate petitions to redetermine the deficiencies. We consolidated these cases for purposes of briefing and opinion pursuant to Rule 141(a) because they present common questions of fact and law. These cases in the aggregate are referred to as "this case".
After a concession, 4 the only issue remaining for decision is whether petitioners may exclude from gross income, under
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*43 BACKGROUND 5
The facts have been stipulated and are so found. The parties' stipulations of fact are incorporated into our opinion by this reference.
Johnston Island is located in the central Pacific Ocean approximately 700 nautical miles west-southwest of Honolulu, Hawaii, and it is the largest of four islands making up 117 T.C. 95">*97 Johnston Atoll. The U.S. Constitution and Insular Areas, GAO/OGC-98-5 (app. II), at 50-51 (Nov. 1997); 16 Encyclopedia Americana 147 (1998); 6 New Encyclopaedia Britannica 598 (15th ed. 1998). Johnston Atoll is an unorganized, unincorporated insular possession of the United States currently under the operational control of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (formerly known as the Defense Nuclear Agency). 6Johnston Atoll has no local government or native population. Act of Aug. 18, 1856, ch. 164, 11 Stat. 119, current version at
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*45 Johnston Atoll is not a part of American Samoa, see S.J. Res. 110, ch. 281, 45 Stat. 1253 (1929), current version at
During the years in issue, petitioner Joseph D. Specking (Specking) and petitioner Eric N. Umbach (Umbach) were employed by Raytheon Demilitarization Co., a part of Raytheon Engineers & Constructors, Inc. (Raytheon), a private contractor. During 1995, petitioner Robert J. Haessly (Haessly) was employed by Raytheon. Hereinafter, both companies are referred to as Raytheon. During the applicable period, petitioners worked for Raytheon on Johnston Island on permanent assignment to the JACADS project, and they lived in quarters provided by Raytheon. Each year they were allowed five 2- week rotations for vacations and to attend to personal matters.
JOSEPH D. SPECKING
Specking resided in Rifle, Colorado, when he filed the petition in his case. He was assigned to the JACADS project for the period June 16, 1993, through at least March 22, 2000. 7
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*47 On his returns for 1995 through 1997, Specking reported the following wages from Raytheon, income from other sources, and adjusted gross income (not including any exclusions from income under
Income from Adjusted
Year Wages other sources gross income
____ _____ _____________ ____________
1995 $ 74,552 1 ($ 15,895) $ 58,657
1996 85,385 (18,203) 67,182
1997 95,246 (28,211) 67,035
With the 1997 return, Specking included a Form 2555, Foreign Earned Income, on which he claimed that he had foreign 117 T.C. 95">*99 earned income of $ 95,246 relating to work performed on Johnston Island, of which2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*48 $ 70,000 was an eligible "foreign earned income exclusion".
On or about June 1, 1998, Specking filed Forms 1040X, Amended U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns, for 1995 and 1996 on which he claimed he was entitled to refunds of $ 8,522 and $ 11,531, respectively, because he could exclude $ 70,000 from gross income for each of those years because "UNDER
In a notice of deficiency issued to Specking on April 1, 1999, respondent determined that Specking was not entitled to exclude any income for 1995 through 1997 because his tax home was not in a foreign country, but in a territory of the United States, and because he was not a bona fide resident of a specified possession as defined in
ERIC N. UMBACH
Umbach resided in Gillette, Wyoming, when2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*49 he filed the petition in his case. He was assigned to the JACADS project for the period February 5, 1990, through at least June 8, 2000.
On his returns for 1995 through 1997, 8 Umbach reported the following wages from Raytheon, income from other sources, and adjusted gross income (not including any exclusions from income under
Income from Adjusted
Year Wages other sources gross income
____ ______ _____________ ____________
1995 $ 97,492 ($ 2,337) $ 95,155
1996 103,112 16 103,128
117 T.C. 95">*100 1997 100,6592001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*50 1 33,363 134,022
With the 1997 return, Umbach included a Form 2555 on which he claimed that he had foreign earned income of $ 100,659 relating to work performed on Johnston Island, of which $ 70,000 was an eligible "foreign earned income exclusion".
On or about October 7, 1997, Umbach filed a Form 1040X, for 1996 on which he claimed he was entitled to a refund of $ 18,802 because he could exclude $ 70,000 from gross income for that year because "UNDER
In notices of deficiency issued to Umbach for 1995 and 1996 on April 13, 1999, and to Umbach and Alicia Lepard Umbach for 1997 on June 9, 1999, respondent determined that Umbach was not entitled to exclude any income for 1995 through 1997 because his tax home was not in a foreign country, but in a territory of the United States, and because he was not a bona fide resident of a specified possession as defined in
ROBERT J. HAESSLY
Haessly resided on Johnston Island when he filed the petition in his case. He was assigned to the JACADS project for the period March 9, 1994, through at least October 31, 1997.
117 T.C. 95">*101 On his return for 1995, Haessly reported the following wages from Raytheon, income from other sources, and adjusted gross income (not including any exclusions from income under
Income from Adjusted
Year2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*52 Wages other sources gross income
____ _____ _____________ ____________
1995 $ 95,654 $ 1,692 1 $ 85,346
Subsequently, Haessly filed a Form 1040X for 1995 on which he claimed he was entitled to a refund of $ 17,816 because he could exclude $ 95,654 from gross income for that year since he was "A BONA FIDE RESIDENT OF U.S. POSSESSION JOHNSTON ISLAND". With the Form 1040X, Haessly included a Form 4563, Exclusion of Income for Bona Fide Residents of American Samoa. On February 6, 1998, respondent issued a refund to Haessly for 1995 for $ 17,816 in tax, plus $ 2,691 in accrued interest.
In a notice of deficiency issued to Haessly on April 1, 1999, respondent determined that Haessly was not entitled to exclude any income for 1995 because his tax home was not in a foreign country, but in a territory of the United States, and2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*53 because he was not a bona fide resident of a specified possession as defined in
DISCUSSION
Petitioners contend that the compensation they earned for services they performed on Johnston Island during2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*54 the years in issue is excludable under
Petitioners contend that the compensation they earned on Johnston Island is excludable under
Before the enactment of section 1272(a) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 1986), Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2593,
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*55
corporations deriving income from sources within a possession of
the United States. -- (a) Definitions. (1) As used in section
931 and this section, the term "possession of the United States"
includes American Samoa, Guam, JOHNSTON ISLAND, Midway Islands,
the Panama Canal Zone, Puerto Rico, and Wake Island. However,
the term does not include (i) the Virgin Islands and (ii), when
used with respect to citizens of the United States, the term
does not include Puerto Rico or, in the case of taxable years
beginning after December 31, 1972, Guam.
(2) As used in
"United States" includes only the States, the Territories of
Alaska and Hawaii, and the District of Columbia. [Emphasis
added.]
The last amendment to
TRA 1986 section 1272(a) amended old
THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
(a) General Rule. -- In the case of an individual who is a
bona fide resident of A SPECIFIED POSSESSION during the entire
taxable year, gross income shall not include --
(1) income derived from sources WITHIN ANY SPECIFIED
POSSESSION, and
(2) income effectively connected with the conduct of a
trade or business by such individual WITHIN ANY SPECIFIED
POSSESSION.
* * * * * * *
(c) Specified Possession. -- For purposes of this
section, the term "specified possession" means GUAM,
AMERICAN SAMOA, AND THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS.
(d) Special rules. -- For purposes of this section --
(1) Employees of the United States. -- Amounts
paid for services performed as an employee of the
United States (or2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*57 any agency thereof) shall be treated
as not described in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection
(a).
(2) Determination of source, etc. -- The
determination as to whether income is described in
paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) shall be made
under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
(3) Determination of residency. -- For purposes of
this section and section 876, the determination of
whether an individual is a bona fide 117 T.C. 95">*104 resident of Guam,
American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands shall
be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary.
[Emphasis added.]
1. PETITIONERS' POSITION
Petitioners contend that the amendments to old
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*59 Petitioners contend further that respondent's failure to amend
2. RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Respondent contends that, under TRA 1986 section 1277(a), 100 Stat. 2600, the amendments to old
Respondent maintains that, in TRA 1986 section 1272(a), Congress clearly intended to limit the exclusion provided by
Our first step in analyzing the issue involved in this case is to ask "whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue."
For this case, the precise question at issue is whether the amendments to old
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*63 TRA 1986 sections 1271, 1272, and 1277 are encompassed in TRA 1986 Title XII -- Foreign Tax Provisions, Subtitle G -- Tax Treatment of Possessions. TRA 1986 sections 1271 and 1272 are in part I of subtitle G. Part I specifically addresses the "Treatment of Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern Mariana Islands". TRA 1986 section 1271, see supra note 12, does not appear in, or make any changes to, the Internal Revenue Code (Code). Rather, that provision grants Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI, under certain conditions, the right to enact their own tax laws, independent of the Code, with respect to income (1) from sources within, or effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business within, the possession, or (2) received or accrued by a resident of the possession. TRA 1986 sec. 1271(a). TRA 1986 section 1271(b) makes that grant of authority applicable to Guam, American Samoa, or the CNMI provisional on the existence of an 117 T.C. 95">*108 implementing agreement "between the United States and SUCH POSSESSION". (Emphasis added.)
TRA 1986 section 1272 amends old
TRA 1986 sections 1271 and 1272 do not specifically address the other U.S. possessions. Nonetheless, the language of the statute, taken in context, indicates that Congress intended to provide an exclusion from gross income under
We find support for our understanding of the statute in its legislative history. E.g., S. Rept. 99-313, at 477-482 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 477-482. Nowhere in that legislative history does Congress indicate an intention to continue to 117 T.C. 95">*109 extend the benefits of
An individual who is a bona fide resident2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*66 of Guam, American
Samoa, or the CNMI during the entire taxable year is subject to
U.S. taxation in the same manner as a U.S. resident. However, in
the case of SUCH AN INDIVIDUAL, gross income for U.S. tax
purposes does not include income derived FROM SOURCES WITHIN ANY
OF THE THREE POSSESSIONS * * *. * * * Thus, even a bona fide
resident of Guam, the CNMI, or American Samoa is required to
file a U.S. return and to pay taxes on a net basis IF HE
RECEIVES INCOME FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE THE THREE POSSESSIONS
(i.e., U.S. or foreign source income). * * * [
1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) at 480-481; emphasis added.]
Our understanding of the statute also comports with congressional intent of enabling Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI to enact their own tax laws independent of the Code, subject to certain restrictions, coordinating their tax systems with the U.S. tax system, and preventing those possessions from being used as tax havens.
Petitioners, however, contend that the amendments to old
TRA 1986 section 1277, see supra note 11, in part IV of subtitle G, provides effective dates for all of subtitle G. TRA 1986 section 1277 does not specifically address the other U.S. possessions. However, the language of that provision, taken in context with the other statutory provisions and the overall statutory scheme, shows that the amendments to old
TRA 1986 section 1277(a) provides that the amendments made by TRA 1986 subtitle G in general become effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986, unless otherwise provided in TRA 1986 section 1277. Thus, unless an exception to that general effective date is provided by another subsection of TRA 1986 section 1277, the amendments to old
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*68
TRA 1986 section 1277(b) provides that the amendments made by subtitle G of title XII "APPLY WITH RESPECT TO GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, OR THE NORTHERN MARIANA ISLANDS" and to residents thereof and corporations created or organized therein "only if (and so long as) an implementing agreement under section 1271 is in effect between the United States and SUCH possession." (Emphasis added.) As we read TRA 1986 section 1277, the amendments to old
Petitioners' reliance on
We do not agree with petitioners that respondent's failure to amend
For the years in issue,
Petitioners argue, in the alternative, that if they may not exclude the compensation they earned on Johnston Island under
117 T.C. 95">*112
an individual whose tax home is in a foreign country and who
is --
(A) a citizen of the United States and establishes to
the satisfaction of the Secretary that he has been a bona
fide resident of a foreign country or countries for an
uninterrupted period which includes an entire taxable year,
or
(B) a citizen or resident of the United States and
who, during any period of 12 consecutive months, is present
in a foreign country or countries during at least 330 full
days in such period.
The Internal Revenue Code does2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*72 not define the term "foreign country" for purposes of
(h) Foreign country. The term "foreign country" when used
in a geographical sense includes ANY TERRITORY UNDER THE
SOVEREIGNTY OF A GOVERNMENT OTHER THAN THAT OF THE UNITED
STATES. It includes the territorial waters of the foreign
country (determined in accordance with the laws of the United
States), the air space over the foreign country, and the seabed
and subsoil of those submarine areas which are adjacent to the
territorial waters of the foreign country and over which the
foreign country has exclusive rights, in accordance with
international law, with respect to the exploration and
exploitation of natural resources. [Emphasis added.]
when used in a geographical sense includes ANY TERRITORY UNDER
THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE UNITED STATES. It includes the states,
the District of Columbia, THE POSSESSIONS2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*73 AND TERRITORIES OF THE
UNITED STATES, the territorial waters of the United States, the
air space over the United States, and the seabed and subsoil of
those submarine areas which are adjacent to the territorial
waters of the United States and over which the United States has
exclusive rights, in accordance with international law, with
respect to the exploration and exploitation of natural
resources. [Emphasis added.]
1. PETITIONERS' POSITION
Petitioners acknowledge that Johnston Island is a territory under the sovereignty of the United States and not a foreign country. Nonetheless, they assert that, if the income they earned on Johnston Island is not excludable under
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*74 2. RESPONDENT'S POSITION
Respondent contends that
We agree with respondent that under
We do not agree with petitioners that section 1.931- 1(b)(2), Income Tax Regs., nonetheless operates to provide them an exclusion from income under
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*79
2001 U.S. Tax Ct. LEXIS 40">*80
117 T.C. 95">*116 The regulations under
CONCLUSION
We have carefully considered all remaining arguments made by petitioners for contrary holdings, and, to the extent not discussed, we find them to be irrelevant or without merit.
To reflect the foregoing,
Decisions will be entered for respondent in docket Nos. 12010-99 and 12348-99.
Decision will be entered under Rule 155 in docket No. 14496-99.
1. Cases of the following petitioners are consolidated herewith: Eric N. Umbach, docket No. 12348-99; and Robert J. Haessly, docket No. 14496-99.↩
2. Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to the Internal Revenue Code in effect for the years in issue, and all Rule references are to the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure. All dollar amounts are rounded to the nearest dollar.↩
3. For 1997, petitioner Eric N. Umbach (Umbach) filed a joint Federal individual income tax return with Alicia LePard. She did not join with Umbach in filing the petition for 1997. In the notice of deficiency for 1997, respondent refers to Alicia LePard as Alicia Lepard Umbach.↩
4. Respondent concedes that petitioner Robert J. Haessly is entitled to claim a credit for child and dependent care expenses in the amount of $ 43 for 1995.↩
5. We rely on judicial notice and stipulations of the parties for statements describing Johnston Island and Johnston Atoll.↩
6. Johnston Atoll, furthermore, is a national wildlife refuge under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of the Interior. Environmental Assessment,
7. Specking previously had been assigned to the JACADS project between Aug. 22, 1988, and Nov. 20, 1991.↩
1. The negative numbers result from a Schedule F, Profit or Loss From Farming, farm loss Specking sustained in each year.↩
8. Umbach filed electronic returns for 1995 and 1996. The record does not contain a copy of the 1996 return. We rely on stipulations of the parties and the 1996 Form 1040X for pertinent information relating to the Form 1040 Umbach filed for 1996.↩
1. Included in income from other sources is $ 31,209 of Form W-2 wages earned by Alicia LePard.↩
1. Haessly also claimed a $ 12,000 adjustment to income for alimony paid.↩
9.
STATES.
(a) General Rule. -- In the case of individual citizens of
the United States, gross income means only gross income from
sources within the United States if the conditions of both
paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) are satisfied:
(1) 3-year period. -- If 80 percent or more of the
gross income of such citizen (computed without the benefit
of this section) for the 3-year period immediately
preceding the close of the taxable year (or for such part
of such period immediately preceding the close of such
taxable year as may be applicable) was derived from sources
within a possession of the United States; and
(2) Trade or business. -- If 50 percent or more of his
gross income (computed without the benefit of this section)
for such period or such part thereof was derived from the
active conduct of a trade or business within a possession
of the United States either on his own account or as an
employee or agent of another.
(b) Amounts Received in United States. -- Notwithstanding
subsection (a), there shall be included in gross income all
amounts received by such citizens * * * within the United
States, whether derived from sources within or without the
United States.
(c) Definition. -- For purposes of this section, the term
"possession of the United States" does not include the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands of the United
States, or Guam.↩
10. To be more precise, petitioners assert that there are three possible interpretations for the overall effect of TRA 1986 secs. 1271, 1272, and 1277, 100 Stat. 2591, 2593, 2600, on old
11. TRA 1986 sec. 1277 provides, in pertinent part:
SEC. 1277. EFFECTIVE DATE.
(a) In General. -- Except as otherwise provided in this
section, the amendments made by this subtitle shall apply to
taxable years beginning after December 31, 1986.
(b) Special Rule for Guam, American Samoa, and the Northern
Mariana Islands. -- The amendments made by this subtitle shall
apply with respect to Guam, American Samoa, or the Northern
Mariana Islands (and to residents thereof and corporations
created or organized therein) only if (and so long as) an
implementing agreement under section 1271 is in effect between
the United States and such possession.↩
12. TRA 1986 sec. 1271 provides, in pertinent part:
SEC. 1271. AUTHORITY OF GUAM, AMERICAN SAMOA, AND THE NORTHERN
MARIANA ISLANDS TO ENACT REVENUE LAWS.
(a) In General. -- Except as provided in subsection (b),
nothing in the laws of the United States shall prevent Guam,
American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands from enacting
tax laws (which shall apply in lieu of the mirror system) with
respect to income --
(1) from sources within, or effectively connected with
the conduct of a trade or business within, any such
possession, or
(2) received or accrued by any resident of such
possession.
(b) Agreements To Alleviate Certain Problems Relating to
Tax Administration. -- Subsection (a) shall apply to Guam,
American Samoa, or the Northern Mariana Islands only if (and so
long as) an implementing agreement is in effect between the
United States and such possession with respect to --
(1) the elimination of double taxation involving
taxation by such possession and taxation by the United
States.
(2) the establishment of rules under which the evasion
or avoidance of United States income tax shall not be
permitted or facilitated by such possession.
(3) the exchange of information between such
possession and the United States for purposes of tax
administration, and
(4) the resolution of other problems arising in
connection with the administration of the tax laws of such
possession or the United States.↩
13. Representatives for the Government of American Samoa signed the tax implementation agreement on Dec. 10, 1987, and the representative for the Government of the United States signed it on Jan. 7, 1988. The tax implementation agreement generally became effective as of Jan. 1, 1988. Tax Implementation Agreement Between the United States of America and American Samoa,
14. We include the Virgin Islands here because other provisions in subtit. G of tit. XII apply specifically to the Virgin Islands. TRA 1986 secs. 1273-1277, 100 Stat. 2595-2600.↩
15. The mirror system of taxation in effect in a qualified possession the day before the effective date of TRA 1986 continues to operate until the possession amends its tax laws. S. Rept. 99-313, at 482-484, 490-491 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 482-484, 490-491. Unlike Guam and the CNMI, before the enactment of the TRA 1986, American Samoa had the authority to enact its own tax system; however, with certain modifications not pertinent here, it generally adopted the U.S. Internal Revenue Code as its own. S. Rept. 99-313, at 477 (1986), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 3) 1, 477. Thus, had American Samoa and the United States not entered into an implementing agreement, income from sources within that possession would qualify for the exclusion provided by old
16. TRA 1986 sec. 1273, in pt. I of subtit. G of tit. XII, relates to the treatment of corporations organized in Guam, American Samoa, and the CNMI. TRA 1986 secs. 1274 and 1275, in pt. II of subtit. G, relate specifically to the Virgin Islands. TRA 1986 sec. 1276, in pt. III of subtit. G,
17. TRA 1986 sec. 1277(c) relates to the Virgin Islands; TRA 1986 sec. 1277(d) mandates reports from the Secretary relating to the implementation agreements described in TRA 1986 sec. 1277(b) and (c), should certain conditions arise; and TRA 1986 sec. 1277(e) provides a special rule for U.S. citizens who become residents of Guam, American Samoa, or the CNMI. TRA 1986, 100 Stat. 2601-2602.↩
18.
(2) Relationship of
United States who cannot meet the 80-percent and the 50-percent
requirements of
sources within a possession of the United States, is not
deprived of the benefits of the provisions of
(relating to the exemption of earned income from sources outside
the United States), provided he meets the requirements thereof.
In such a case none of the provisions of
applicable in determining the citizen's tax liability. For what
constitutes earned income, see
19.
(b) Tax home. For purposes of paragraph (a)(i) of this
section, the term "tax home" has the same meaning which it has
for purposes of
away from home). Thus, under
home is considered to be located at his regular or principal (if
more than one regular) place of business or, if the individual
has no regular or principal place of business because of the
nature of the business, then at his regular place of abode in a
real and substantial sense. An individual shall not, however, be
considered to have a tax home in a foreign country for any
period for which the individual's abode is in the United States.
Temporary presence of the individual in the United States does
not necessarily mean that the individual's abode is in the
United States during that time. Maintenance of a dwelling in the
United States by an individual, whether or not that dwelling is
used by the individual's spouse and dependents, does not
necessarily mean that the individual's abode is in the United
States.↩
20.
21. Furthermore, the regulations would be valid under the Secretary's general authority to promulgate regulations set forth in