context: Further, it is a cardinal principle that the Secretary's interpretation of the statute need not be the only reasonable interpretation or the one which the court views as the most reasonable.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.parenthetical: "[I]f found to 'implement the Congressional mandate in some reasonable manner,' [regulation] must be upheld."
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Cornell, 389 U.S. 299, 307, 88 S.Ct. 445, 450, 19 L.Ed.2d 537 (1967) (“[I]f found to ‘implement the Congressional mandate in some reasonable manner,’ [regulation] must be upheld.”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.parenthetical: regulation which had a "reasonable basis" in the statutory history upheld, even though taxpayer's challenge had "logical force"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Fulman v. United States, 434 U.S. 528, 534-36, 98 S.Ct. 841, 845-46, 55 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (regulation which had a “reasonable basis” in the statutory history upheld, even though taxpayer’s challenge had “logical force”).