- 37 -
Petitioners, in reliance on Shell Oil Co. v. Commissioner,
89 T.C. 371 (1987), supplemented by 90 T.C. 747 (1988), revd. in
part and remanded in part 952 F.2d 885 (5th Cir. 1992), argue
that they are entitled to claim the benefit of changes in law,
new facts, or any other item that might affect the taxpayer's
liability. See secs. 6511, 6512(b); see also Stone v. White, 301
U.S. 532, 534-535 (1937); Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247,
260-262 (1935). Petitioners assert that this is precisely what
they did here, i.e., that after reviewing their records in
preparation for these cases, petitioners claimed in their
petitions the benefit of changes in law as set forth in Shell
Oil. Petitioners further assert that contrary to respondent's
contention, it is not necessary that they show authority
permitting their percentage depletion apportionment method to be
radically different from their WPT apportionment method.
We disagree. Given that petitioners claimed the benefits of
percentage depletion and are subject to the WPT, they are faced
with the dilemma of explaining what authority permits them to
compute an NIL for percentage depletion purposes and an NIL for
WPT purposes, both of which are calculated under section 1.613-
5(a), Income Tax Regs., in a way that achieves radically
different results.
Section 4988(b)(3)(A) expressly states that "the taxable
income from the property shall be determined under section
613(a)." (Emphasis added.) Thus, when Congress enacted the WPT,
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011