that a spouse domiciled in Texas has “the obligation, not merely the right, to report half the community income.” 510 F.2d at 113. The district court’s analysis in the present case, by contrast, is consistent with our precedent and Revenue Ruling 2004-74. We therefore hold that the district court did not err in calculating Gray’s share of her and her husband’s joint tax liability. TV. Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. 1 . Although not binding precedent, courts “generally accord significant weight to the determinations of the IRS in its revenue rulings.” St. David’s Health Care Sys. v. United States, 349 F.3d 232, 239 n. 9 (5th Cir.2003). But cf. Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. United States, 441 F.2d 364, 368 (8th Cir. 1971) (<HOLDING>). 2 . Gray’s appeal addresses only this narrow
holding that the statute qualifies as an exemption 3 statute holding that the title of the statute did not limit the reach of the statute recognizing that statute of limitations questions may be resolved on a motion to dismiss holding conflict between experts theories is matter to be resolved by jury holding that conflicts between a revenue ruling and a statute must be resolved by the statute