- 18 -
transfer pricing method or grouping of transactions may
be more beneficial.
Petitioner reasons that a dual section 6511 requirement is
superfluous insofar as sentence No. 6 calls for correlative
adjustments to the returns of the party in the deficiency
position. (Petitioner's argument presupposes that correlative
adjustments are authorized by sentence No. 6 even though the year
of the taxpayer in the deficiency posture may already otherwise
have closed. See discussion infra at pp. 24-25).
We think sentence No. 4 and sentence No. 6 serve different
functions, however. To wit, sentence No. 4 specifies the time
within which redeterminations must be made by the parties,
whereas sentence No. 6 underscores the fact that such
redeterminations cannot be made unilaterally. The interpretation
advanced by petitioner simply flies in the face of the plain
language of the Regulation, and we decline to rewrite the
Regulation to conform with petitioner's tortured construction.
Cf. Brown-Forman Corp. v. Commissioner, 94 T.C. at 939.
Petitioner's alternative position regarding redeterminations
under sentence No. 5 is without merit as well. Petitioner
argues, in effect, that since sentence No. 5 speaks to certain
types of changes not permitted by sentence No. 4, sentence No. 5
must not incorporate the timeframe contained in sentence No. 4.
But it defies logic to suppose that, in drafting the Regulation,
the Secretary would have provided sub silentio a disparate rule
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011