- 22 -
Commissioner, T.C. Memo 1994-545. Petitioner has not shown that
such a request was made.9 Furthermore, petitioner has not
offered any reasons as to why, if the request had been made, it
should have been granted. Assuming, but not deciding, that we
may have jurisdiction to review the disposition of such a
request, we have no basis upon which to make a determination that
respondent's action constituted an abuse of discretion. Compare
Mailman v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082 (1988).
Lastly, petitioner contends that because section 1.874-1(a),
Income Tax Regs., imposes a timely filing requirement on
residents of foreign countries including Mexico as a prerequisite
to receiving the benefit of deductions, and no such requirement
is imposed on U.S. residents, the regulation violates the
nondiscrimination clause in Article 25 of the Income Tax Treaty
between Mexico and the United States. United States-Mexico
Income Tax Treaty, Sept. 18, 1992, Tax Treaties (CCH) par.
5903.27. Petitioner's argument is not well taken. While we
question whether there is a conflict between section 874(a) and
the provisions of the treaty, the treaty is effective for taxable
9 In the petition, petitioner alleged that he requested a
waiver. Respondent denied the allegation in the answer. This
case was submitted fully stipulated, and there is nothing in that
stipulation establishing that petitioner requested a waiver or,
if requested, the grounds for a waiver.
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011