- 17 - economic business unit. See Amorient, Inc. v. Commissioner, 103 T.C. 161, 168 (1994). Those regulations, however, do not treat a consolidated group on a pure single entity basis for purposes of computing the CNOL. See secs. 1.1502-21A(f), 1.1502-12, Income Tax Regs. Because Lynchburg had no separate loss under section 1.1502-12, Income Tax Regs., Lynchburg had no SLL. Rather, Lynchburg's SLL deductions were offset by its 1992 gross income. Because Lynchburg's SLL deductions were absorbed by its current income, those deductions were not taken into account in computing the group's CNOL. Accordingly, the group's CNOL did not include any SLL attributable to Lynchburg. Where a group has deductions in excess of gross income, the group cannot characterize part of its CNOL as SLL merely because a member had deductions of a type that would otherwise qualify as SLL.12 Petitioner contends that Amtel Inc. v. United States, supra, and Norwest Corp. and Subs. v. Commissioner, supra, are readily distinguishable from the instant case.13 Although neither case 12 As discussed infra, because we conclude that the deductions for the taxes and interest in issue were not taken into account in the computation of the group's CNOL, we do not consider whether the deductions for taxes and interest otherwise qualify as SLL within the meaning of sec. 172(f). 13 Petitioner also cites an unpublished Order from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina in United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 82 A.F.T.R.2d 98-5037, 98-2 U.S.T.C. par. 50527 (W.D.N.C. 1998), as support for its position. On facts similar to the instant case, the court in United Dominion examined the interplay between sec. 172(j), (continued...)Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011