State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company and Subsidiaries - Page 20




                                       - 20 -                                         
          other instances, separate computation of consolidated partial               
          LICTI (or loss from operations) and nonlife consolidated taxable            
          income (or loss) “does not affect the usual rules in secs.                  
          1.1502-0--1.1502-80 unless this section provides otherwise.”                
          Sec. 1.1502-47(r), Income Tax Regs.                                         
               Hence, the preemption rules are by their terms limited to              
          other regulations promulgated under section 1502 and have no                
          direct applicability here.  In this connection, it is noteworthy            
          that the AMT regulations were promulgated after those for life-             
          nonlife groups.  Yet no provisions were put in place to specify             
          unique treatment for these insurance entities, although the                 
          Commissioner had been made aware of the issue by a comment                  
          received after issuance of temporary AMT regulations.  See Field            
          Serv. Adv. Mem. TR-45-1815-95 (Apr. 10, 1996) (discussing events            
          leading up to the issuance of the final AMT regulations).  Nor              
          were the explicit preemption directives in section 1.1502-47,               
          Income Tax Regs., augmented to bear upon regulations other than             
          those promulgated under section 1502.  Given this scenario, we              
          find merit in petitioner’s analogy of the present situation                 
          generally to cases such as United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United           
          States, 532 U.S. 822 (2001), and Honeywell Inc. v. Commissioner,            
          87 T.C. 624 (1986).                                                         
               In United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, supra at             
          824-825, the Supreme Court held that a single-entity, rather than           






Page:  Previous  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011