- 5 -
the incongruity of the threshold amount is avoided because only
subsection (c)(3)(B) is required to define the term. Petitioner
forms its counterargument out of the broader reference in the
flush language of subsection (a)(1) to subsection (c)(3) rather
than subsection (c)(3)(B). Petitioner states that the broader
subsection reference is intentional and must not be disregarded.
Petitioner reasons that the reference to subsection (c)(3) means
that “overpayment” and the words that follow are included in the
defined term, not simply “taxable period”.
Another complication is that subsection (c)(3) does not
define “underpayment” but rather the phrase “large corporate
underpayment”. “Large corporate overpayments” does not appear in
subsection (a)(1).
Because neither party’s interpretation is without
difficulty, we find the statutory language to be ambiguous, and
we find reference to legislative history is appropriate. While
we do not find a definitive answer in the legislative history,
there is some guidance. The stated reason for the addition of
the flush language to section 6621(a)(1) was:
Distortions may result if the rates of
interest in the Code differ appreciably from
market rates. Reducing the overpayment rate
for large corporate overpayments of taxes
will reduce the possibility of distortions.
H. Rept. 103-826 (Pt. 1), at 178 (1994), 1995-1 C.B. 250, 254.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011