- 12 -
petitioner’s complaint about the absence of final regulations,
respondent argues that the statute is clear and unambiguous
concerning the issues before the Court and that there is no need
to seek interpretation or guidance from any regulation. In
addition, respondent contends that the section 7872(h) areas for
which regulations were mandated and which were referenced by
petitioner have no bearing on the questions before the Court.
We first consider the statutory language in our search for
an answer. See United States v. American Trucking Associations,
Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 542-543 (1940); Hospital Corp. of Am. v.
Commissioner, 107 T.C. 116, 128 (1996). If the language of the
statute is clear, we need look no further in deciding its
meaning. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 482 (1990).
Petitioner’s Controlling Shareholder Argument--Below-market
loans between corporations and shareholders may come within the
provision of section 7872. In particular, section 7872(c)(1)(C)
makes section 7872 applicable to “Any below-market loan directly
or indirectly between a corporation and any shareholder of such
corporation.” The loans in question were without interest, and,
if the other threshold requirements are met, the loans would be
subject to section 7872.
Petitioner’s primary attack on respondent’s determination is
based on the fact that each of its shareholders has less than a
majority or controlling interest in petitioner and that the
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011