- 16 -
Second, respondent maintains that the legislative intent
underlying section 58(h) was well documented in the committee
reports accompanying the enactment of that section, while no
reference is made to section 865(j) in the relevant committee
reports. Finally, respondent asserts that contrary to the
instant case there were no controlling preexisting regulations in
Occidental Petroleum Corp.
Respondent's arguments are unpersuasive. First, we conclude
that Congress did intend that regulations promulgated pursuant to
section 865(j) would embody a "particular rule"; i.e., residence-
based sourcing would generally be used for losses realized on the
sale of noninventory personal property. Second, respondent's
reliance on the absence of any mention of section 865(j) in the
committee reports is erroneous, since Congress articulated the
overall purpose behind section 865 in the legislative history.
See supra pp. 8-9. In addition, the General Explanation confirms
that it was expected that losses generally would be sourced
similarly to gains. Although the General Explanation does not
technically rise to the level of legislative history, we have
nonetheless stated that "We are not unmindful of the fact that
both the Supreme Court, and this Court, have relied upon the
General Explanation in analyzing tax statutes * * * and that the
General Explanation is entitled to great respect". Rivera v.
Commissioner, 89 T.C. 343, 349 n.7 (1987).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011