- 24 -
reason to invalidate the regulation; the determination of when a
contingent item can be reasonably expected to be received can be
made on a case-by-case basis. The regulation is a reasonable
interpretation of, and plainly consistent with, the underlying
statute.11
In light of the foregoing, we hold that section 1.460-
6(c)(2)(vi), Income Tax Regs., is valid because it harmonizes
with the plain language, origin, and purpose of section 460.
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments and find
them either irrelevant or unnecessary for resolving the parties’
controversy. To reflect the foregoing,
An order will be issued
denying petitioner’s motion for
partial summary judgment.
11 Although petitioner’s position may also be a reasonable
interpretation, we are constrained to uphold the regulation if it
has a reasonable basis in the statutory history, even though
petitioner’s challenge may have some logical force. See Pagel,
Inc. v. Commissioner, 91 T.C. 200, 218 (1988), affd. 905 F.2d
1190 (8th Cir. 1990).
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Last modified: May 25, 2011