- 19 -
intended purpose for the enactment ofsection 1033.
Respondent argues that the purpose of section 1033 may be
better served where a taxpayer is unable to process damaged
property into the taxpayer’s usual product(s). But that
disability is not a threshold for relief or a requirement of the
statute. Section 1033 is a relief provision, and we are to
construe it liberally to effect its purpose. Davis v. United
States, 589 F.2d 446, 450 (9th Cir. 1979); Asjes v. Commissioner,
74 T.C. 1005, 1014 (1980).14
Respondent would have this Court impose its own judgment as
to which taxpayer deserves relief. So, for example, if a
taxpayer, like the one in the 1980 ruling, was growing trees for
eventual sale, relief is available even though the taxpayer sells
the damaged trees to its usual customers. Under respondent’s
suggested approach, petitioner would not be entitled to relief
because it had choices other than sale; i.e., to further process
the damaged trees. Petitioner, under respondent’s approach,
13(...continued)
systematically harvest trees and to maximize its profit. It was
not petitioner’s intent to randomly cull and process trees that
happened to become damaged.
14 Respondent also argues that, if petitioner is entitled to
sec. 1033 relief in the circumstances of this case, the “narrowly
tailored relief provision” will become difficult to administer
(with respect to the deferral aspects) and permit relief whether
or not it is needed. These arguments, made for purposes of
emphasis, do not persuade us that the statute withholds relief in
this situation.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011