§1526

ons 414(q) and 415(c)(3). Petitioner's explanation does not show that respondent's reliance on this part ofthe determination as part ofthe basis for revocation was unreasonable or arbitrary. 4Respondent also notes that the changes required by TRA 97 sec. 1526(c), 111 Stat. at 1073, have not been made. -18- [*18] D. Tax Reform Act of 1986 Changes That Affected the Plan .The Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA 86), Pub. L. No. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, made two changes pertinent to this case, as follows. Fi

1526(d)(4) (“Secretary may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary”)]. 17 See also Vermuele, “Mead in the Trenches,” 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 347, 350 (2003) (notice-and-comment rulemaking a safe- harbor category); but see Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., 376 F.3d 118, 132 n.5 (2d Cir. 2004); Merrill, “The Mead Doctrine: R

1526(d)(4) ((“Secretary may prescribe such rules and regulations as may be necessary”)). See also Vermuele, “Mead in the Trenches”, 71 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 347, 350 (2003) (notice- and-comment rulemaking a safe-harbor category). But see Coke v. Long Island Care at Home, Ltd., 376 F.3d 118, 132 n.5 (2d Cir. 2004); Merrill, “The Mead Doctrine: Rul

186, 1189.3 Here, although there was no mutual understanding of a 3In Dirs. Guild of Am. v. Harmony Pictures, Inc., 32 F. Supp. 2d 1184, 1189 (C.D. Cal. 1998) the United States District Court concluded that relevant portions of California Civil Code sec. 1526 and California Commercial Code sec. 3311 are in conflict, and the court gave effect to the later-enacted Commercial Code sec. 3311. - 13 - release between JTF and petitioners before the check was issued, there may have been such a mutual un