- 18 -
In sum, the majority’s holding is contrary to section 29(a)
and (b)(2), not supported by case law,3 and premised on a
mischaracterization of respondent’s position. We “are not at
liberty * * * to add to or alter the words employed to effect a
purpose which does not appear on the face of the statute.”
Hanover Bank v. Commissioner, 369 U.S. 672, 687 (1962).
Petitioner is entitled to a total credit of $148,011 (i.e., $3 x
49,337 BOE) rather than the $143,964 allowed by the majority.
3 As support for the holding, the majority cites United
States v. Skelly Oil Co., 394 U.S. 678 (1969), Charles Ilfeld Co.
v. Hernandez, 292 U.S. 62 (1934), and United Telecomms., Inc. v.
Commissioner, 589 F.2d 1383 (10th Cir. 1978). These cases,
however, are distinguishable because the applicable statutes or
regulations prohibited double deductions or credits. See United
States v. Skelly Oil Co., supra at 682-683 (reasoning that the
applicable sections of the Code and the case law developed under
those sections prohibited double deductions); Charles Ilfeld Co.
v. Hernandez, supra at 67 (concluding that the regulations
prohibited double deductions); United Telecomms., Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra at 1387-1388 (concluding that the applicable
legislative regulations prohibited double credits); cf. Transco
Exploration Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 373, 387 (1990) (holding
that, based on plain language of the statute, the taxpayer was
entitled to a double benefit), affd. 949 F.2d 837 (5th Cir.
1992).
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