- 32 -
regulatory requirements in dispute are procedural and respondent
was not prejudiced by the omissions, the Court may determine that
the regulatory requirements have been fulfilled.
On numerous occasions we have discussed the necessity of
literal compliance with the procedural requirements in Treasury
regulations on making elections, such as “place of filing”
requirements. See, e.g., Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Commissioner,
67 T.C. 736, 748 (1977), in which we said: “Repeatedly this
Court has held elections effective where the taxpayer complied
with the essential requirements of a regulation even though the
taxpayer failed to comply with certain procedural directions
therein.” In Taylor v. Commissioner, 67 T.C. 1071, 1077 (1977),
we said:
The critical question to be answered is whether the
requirements relate to the substance or essence of the
statute. If so, strict adherence to all statutory and
regulatory requirements is a precondition to an
effective election. On the other hand, if the
requirements are procedural or directory in that they
are not the essence of the thing to be done but are
given with a view to orderly conduct of business, they
may be fulfilled by substantial, if not strict,
compliance. [Internal quotation marks and citations
omitted.]
We are not dealing here with an election, yet the situation is
analogous, and the same considerations apply.
The service center filing specification is not required by
the statutory provision providing for an extension by agreement
of the 3-year period. See sec. 6229(b). We find that the filing
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011