- 20 - Petitioner's argument regarding the applicability of section 6501 to the party in the deficiency position for purposes of satisfying the Regulation's terms is also unavailing. While section 6501 undeniably governs respondent's ability to assess deficiencies, the Regulation expressly ties taxpayers' redeterminations of FSC expenses to the period of limitations under section 6511. These are wholly independent matters, which petitioner wrongly conflates. Accordingly, we disagree with petitioner's attempt to insert the limitations period of its choosing in lieu of section 6511 in order to secure the benefits of the Regulation. Lastly, the fact that the Regulation utilizes section 6511 as a point of reference, even though any commission expense redetermination automatically places one of the taxpayers (either the FSC or the related supplier) in a deficiency position, does not effect an absurd or nonsensical result in our judgment. See Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. at 728. The dual section 6511 requirement simply specifies an uncomplicated timeframe within which the taxpayer seeking an additional deduction must act, nothing more. Based on the above discussion, we hold that the Regulation requires that the period of limitations for claiming refunds under section 6511 be open for both petitioner and UCFSC in order for petitioner to claim additional FSC commission expenses for the taxable years in issue.Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011