-104-
allowable to the corporations. * * * In view of such
a specific prerequisite it is inconceivable that
Congress contemplated by that section that taxpayers
could wait indefinitely to file returns and eventually
when the respondent determined deficiencies against
them they could then by filing returns obtain all the
benefits to which they would have been entitled if
their returns had been timely filed. Such a
construction would put a premium on evasion, since a
taxpayer would have nothing to lose by not filing a
return as required by statute.
Id. at 703-704.
More recently, in Espinosa v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 146
(1996), the issue was whether untimely returns filed by a
nonresident alien individual were sufficient to avoid the
disallowance of deductions under section 874(a) (which contains
language virtually identical to the language in question in
section 882(c)(2)). We upheld the disallowance of deductions
under section 874(a), concluding:
[W]hile sections 874(a) and 882(c)(2) contain no
explicit time limit, the policy behind these
provisions, as applied by the case law, dictates that
there is a cut-off point or terminal date after which
it is too late to submit a tax return and claim the
benefit of deductions. If no cut-off point existed,
taxpayers would have an indefinite time to file a
return, and these provisions would be rendered
meaningless. * * *
Id. at 157 (emphasis added).
As the above discussion suggests, no case has said that
section 822(c)(2) does not (or its precursors did not) make
timely filing a prerequisite to receiving the benefit of
deductions. Nor does the body of cases discussing section
Page: Previous 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011