-192-
however, the statute itself clearly directed the Treasury
Department to prescribe specific regulations as to the matter in
question in order to effect congressional intent. Here, by
contrast, we find in the statute no clear direction from Congress
to the Treasury Department to prescribe rules valuing financial
derivatives, let alone a direction to prescribe those rules as a
precondition to effecting congressional intent as to section 475.
The fact that regulations have not been issued on the valuation
matter at hand does not provide FNBC with a basis to thwart
Congress’s mandate to value swaps at fair market value. Intl.
Multifoods Corp. v. Commissioner, 108 T.C. 579, 587 (1997) (and
cases cited thereat).
Nor do we agree with petitioner that the legislative history
of section 475 indicates that taxpayers are allowed to implement
under section 475 any “reasonable” method until the Treasury
Department exercises its regulatory authority.61 We trace the
history of section 475 to the Treasury Department’s concern that
certain existing tax rules applicable to securities dealers
appeared overly favorable when compared with GAAP. The specific
concern, as stated in the President’s Budget Proposal, see
Department of the Treasury, General Explanation of the
President’s Budget Proposals Affecting Receipts 89-90 (Jan. 30,
61 Petitioner relies erroneously on First Chicago Corp. v.
Commissioner, 88 T.C. 663 (1987), affd. 842 F.2d 180 (7th Cir.
1988), for a contrary proposition.
Page: Previous 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011