- 34 -
short, the legislative history is perfectly consistent with the
literal words of section 183(e)(4). There is nothing in the
legislative history to indicate that Congress intended that
section 183(e)(4) would extend the period of limitations for
claiming refunds or that it would override the specific
provisions of section 6501(c)(4).
Absent absurd, unreasonable, or futile results, there is "no
more persuasive evidence of the purpose of a statute than the
words by which the legislature undertook to give expression to
its wishes." United States v. American Trucking Associations,
Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940). There is nothing that is
unreasonable or absurd about providing an extension that is
limited to permitting the assessment of a deficiency regarding
the section 183 activity in return for allowing a taxpayer to
postpone a determination by the Commissioner regarding the same
activity. There is no compelling policy-based reason why the
statutory period within which the Commissioner may make a
deficiency determination pursuant to section 183(e)(4) must be
coterminous with the period within which a taxpayer may claim
refund of an overpayment. Sections 6501 and 6511 provide
different periods of limitations for making deficiency
determinations and claiming refunds. Thus, it is not infrequent
that this Court acquires deficiency jurisdiction based on a
timely notice of deficiency and at the same time lacks
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011