- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011