- 10 -
dealing with deductibility, and section 412, dealing with the
minimum funding standard, provide for different periods within
which a contribution must be made in order to be timely, and Pub.
560 restates those different periods.
Even if Pub. 560 could be construed to suggest that a
contribution will be deemed timely for minimum funding standard
purposes if made by the due date of the employer’s return plus
extensions, it is clear that the sources of authoritative law in
the area of Federal taxation are the relevant statutes,
regulations, and judicial decisions and not informal publications
issued by the Internal Revenue Service. See Zimmerman v.
Commissioner, 71 T.C. 367, 371 (1978), affd. without published
opinion 614 F.2d 1294 (2d Cir. 1979); Green v. Commissioner, 59
T.C. 456, 458 (1972); see also Dixon v. United States, 381 U.S.
68, 73-75 (1965); Adler v. Commissioner, 330 F.2d 91, 93 (9th
Cir. 1964), affg. T.C. Memo. 1963-196; Carter v. Commissioner, 51
T.C. 932, 935 n.3 (1969). In other words, reliance on an
informal IRS publication may not be used to justify a reporting
position that is inconsistent with the operative law. See, e.g.,
Johnson v. Commissioner, 620 F.2d 153, 155 (7th Cir. 1980), affg.
T.C. Memo. 1978-426; Jones v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1993-358.
Finally, petitioner seeks to have us redress the timing
difference between section 404(a) and section 412. In this
regard, petitioner points out that corporate taxpayers are deemed
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011