- 12 -
taxpayer in order for section 530 to apply. The provision is
intended to reverse the IRS position, as stated in the IRS Draft
Training Guide”. Id. at 26. Respondent argues that given the
level of scrutiny Congress gave the area of section 530 relief in
1996, Congress would not have left the language of section
530(a)(1)(B) silent as to timeliness if it disagreed with
respondent’s position.
III. Analysis
As to the thrust of “timeliness” in the context of section
530, we conclude, for reasons hereinafter stated, that both
parties are off the mark. Petitioner unconvincingly argues that
because of the remedial nature of section 530, the Code-wide
pervasiveness of a timely filing requirement must give way to the
greater good of section 530 liberality. Respondent’s position
that denial of section 530 relief may be used as a (totally
disproportionate) penalty for petitioner’s offense of late filing
is likewise unconvincing in light of the fact that the Internal
Revenue Code contains a specific regime for dealing with the
consequences of late filing of information returns--which
respondent has apparently decided not to invoke. (See discussion
infra.) We agree with petitioner that its late filing of the
information returns does not prevent it from satisfying the
filing requirement of section 530(a)(1)(B). The plain language
of section 530(a)(1)(B) denies relief only if the required filing
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011