- 22 -
plain meaning. Our reaction is that none of the issues that the
parties have asked us to rule on in the partial summary judgment
motion before us can be resolved by merely looking at the plain
meaning of the statutes we deal with.
We consider first (both dockets) whether petitioners are
entitled to partial summary judgment that EAPR was engaged in the
active conduct of a trade or business in Puerto Rico so as to
entitle it to possessions tax credits for the years in issue. We
then consider (the EAPR docket) whether petitioners are entitled
to partial summary judgment that EAPR had a significant business
presence in Puerto Rico so as to entitle it to compute its
taxable income using the “profit split” method for the years in
issue.
B. Active Conduct of a Trade or Business
1. Parties’ Contentions
Respondent contends that petitioners’ partial summary
judgment motion must be denied because (1) “as a matter of law
* * * Petitioners cannot attribute the activities of the PPI or
EA employees to EAPR” to satisfy the active-conduct-of-a-trade-
or-business test under section 936(a)(2)(B); and (2) if
attribution is not per se impermissible, then “there are material
facts in dispute that are relevant to the statutory” test.
Petitioners contend that the tax credit under section 936,
and the predecessor statutes back to 1921 (which provided an
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011