that the Commissioner was not estopped, from applying Revenue Ruling 80-173 retroactively. V. Taxpayer raises several other grounds for reversal on appeal but it is less than clear that they were presented to the Tax Court. The most significant of these grounds was that the Commissioner’s different treatment of flight training benefits from other veterans’ educational benefits denied him the right to equal treatment in the application of the tax laws. We conclude that the totality of the present circumstances dictates that this ground be remanded to the Tax Court for appropriate consideration. We reach this conclusion for several reasons. First, we are uncertain whether it was before the Tax Court given the language of the pro se brief filed in that court. Next, and of importa .1984) (<HOLDING>). Thus, there may be some question as to the
recognizing that the application of a retroactive amendment is discretionary holding retroactive application holding no retroactive application holding retroactive application of the act to prosecution that was pending before the effective date of the act was precluded because the act is prospective holding that there is no rational reason for the retroactive application of 80173 and the prospective application of 833