- 43 -
section 1.936-6(b)(1) Q&A-12, Income Tax Regs., constitutes a
valid exercise of the Secretary's regulatory authority. We
conclude that Q&A-12 is the controlling provision in the instant
case.
E. Exxon
Respondent argues in the alternative that this Court's
opinion in Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 721 (1994),
provides an independent basis for denying the instant motion as
the application of Q&A-12 to the facts of the instant case would
cause absurd results. Petitioner, citing Abdalla v.
Commissioner, 647 F.2d 487, 497 (5th Cir. 1981), affg. 69 T.C.
697 (1978), contends that the plain and unambiguous meaning of a
provision may be overridden only in rare and exceptional
circumstances where the result of giving the provision its plain
and unambiguous meaning would be so absurd as to "shock the
general moral or common sense" and be against clear legislative
intent.
Petitioner argues that respondent's reliance on Exxon Corp.
v. Commissioner, supra, is misplaced, and that respondent is
essentially asking this Court to rewrite the applicable
regulations. We agree. We find that Exxon Corp. is
distinguishable from the instant case.
Exxon received a known and quantifiable amount of income
from sales of natural gas in 1979. Exxon claimed a 22-percent
depletion allowance on an amount larger than the actual sales
Page: Previous 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011