S/V Drilling Partners, Snyder Armclar Gas Company, Tax Matters Partners - Page 11




                                       - 11 -                                         
               Petitioner cites Priv. Ltr. Rul. 86-42-052 (July 21, 1986)             
          for the proposition that the Commissioner has known for many                
          years that gas production can qualify for more than one NGPA                
          classification.  The fact that natural gas may qualify under more           
          than one NGPA classification does not entitle S/V to a double               
          credit under section 29.                                                    
               Petitioner contends that Congress intended to provide                  
          multiple incentives for natural gas production.  Despite this, we           
          conclude that Congress did not provide double credits under                 
          section 29 for the same natural gas.                                        
               Petitioner contends that we must liberally construe section            
          29, citing Miller v. Standard Nut Margarine Co., 284 U.S. 498,              
          501 (1932).  We disagree.  The U.S. Supreme Court stated in                 
          Standard Nut Margarine Co. that definitions of things subject to            
          be taxed may not be extended beyond their clear import.  See id.            
          Section 29 does not define things subject to tax.  The denial of            
          double credits under section 29 is consistent with the long-                
          standing judicial preference for interpreting tax statutes,                 
          absent a clear declaration of congressional intent, not to allow            
          double credits.  See United States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S.              
          678 (1969); Charles Ilfeld Co. v. Hernandez, 292 U.S. 62 (1934);            
          United Telecomms, Inc. v. Commissioner, 589 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir.            
          1978), affg. 67 T.C. 760 (1977) and 65 T.C. 278 (1975).                     








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011