- 15 -
Petitioners further argue that in the absence of a rule
under the regulations as to how to treat losses of ineligible
nonlife companies that constituted part of a previously
affiliated and consolidated group, the statutory and regulatory
provisions are unclear and ambiguous, and petitioners should be
entitled to treat losses of the respective ineligible nonlife
companies that constituted members of the former INA and PHC
Groups under any reasonable interpretation of the statute.
Petitioners then argue that treating members of the former INA
Group and members of the former PHC Group as two single nonlife
entities constitutes a reasonable approach.
Additionally, if we agree with respondent's interpretation
of section 1.1502-47(m)(3)(vi), Income Tax Regs., with regard to
the companies that constituted members of the former INA and PHC
Groups, petitioners argue that the regulation should be
invalidated.
Petitioners also argue that a calculation of the ineligible
CNOL's using respondent’s separate entity method would cause an
increased overall tax liability for the CIGNA Group, as compared
to the collective tax liabilities of the CIGNA Group and the
former INA and PHC Groups, assuming the former INA and the PHC
Groups had never been acquired. Petitioners thus conclude that
any such calculation would constitute an improper, punitive
calculation.
We disagree with each of petitioners’ arguments.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011