- 5 -
return. Second, the Fund argues, the open-ended limitation
period of section 6501(c)(3) for failing to file a return does
not apply because, the Fund states, it was not required to file a
return for either year, seeing that its tax liability had been
withheld in full by Banker's Trust. The Fund relies on the first
sentence of section 1.6012-1(b)(2)(i), Income Tax Regs., to
support its second argument and acknowledges that it was required
to file a return but for this sentence. In the alternative, the
Fund argues, respondent is time barred with respect to 1991
because the notice of deficiency for that year was issued more
than 3 years after Banker's Trust filed its 1991 Form 1042. The
Fund asserts with respect to this alternative argument that the
1991 Form 1042 started the 3-year period for assessing tax owed
by it for 1991.
We disagree with the Fund's assertion that respondent is
barred from assessing an income tax deficiency for its 1991 or
1992 taxable year. The parties have requested summary
adjudication of this issue, and the record allows us to honor
their request. We may decide this issue as a matter of law
because the record shows the absence of a dispute as to a
material fact related to the issue. See Rule 121(b); see also
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).
A plain meaning interpretation of the applicable provisions
of the Code and regulations controls our decision. See
Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-254 (1992);
TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153 (1978); United States v. American
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011