- 26 -
to the statute of limitation on refund claims, to refund
such overpayment. * * * [Id. at 924.]
In petitioner's hypothetical situation, sentence No. 6 may compel
respondent to refund such overpayments regardless of the
expiration of section 6511. In any event, this scenario is not
before us, and we need not resolve it at this time. Cf. id. at
924.
Conversely, petitioner argues that the Regulation's dual
section 6511 requirement opens the door for taxpayers to whipsaw
respondent. For example, a related supplier could claim a refund
based on additional FSC commissions while the period of
limitations under section 6511 is open for both the related
supplier and the FSC, but after the period of limitations has
expired under section 6501 for respondent to assess the FSC's
correlative deficiency. Petitioner correctly points out that in
such a case section 6511 would be irrelevant to the assessment of
an FSC's deficiency stemming from additional commission income.
Petitioner also states that the FSC's filing of an amended return
reporting a deficiency does not provide any basis for the
assessment thereof if the period of limitations under section
6501 has expired. See Diamond Gardner Corp. v. Commissioner, 38
T.C. 875, 881 (1962); Melahn v. Commissioner, 9 T.C. 769, 778
(1947); Rev. Rul. 74-580, 1974-2 C.B. 400.
Under the terms of the Regulation, however, petitioner is
not entitled to its claims of additional FSC commission expenses
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