-71-
following its interpretation by the judiciary. First, when the
relevant text was codified in the 1939 Code, that text had
recently been construed in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v.
Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938), a unanimous reviewed opinion
of the Board, as including no timely filing requirement.27
Second, as of each of the times when the text was reenacted in
the 1954 Code, the Foreign Investors Tax Act of 1966, and the
1986 Code, Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. had been cited
repeatedly, favorably, and without reservation by both the Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Board. As of each of
those times, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit also had
decided Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, 125 F.2d 906 (4th Cir.
1942), which confirmed the holding of Anglo-Am. Direct Tea
Trading Co. that the relevant text contained no reference to a
time element and stated that Congress, in initially enacting the
text as part of the Revenue Act of 1928, had adopted a
longstanding administrative construction of a parallel provision
to the effect that a foreign corporation may deduct its expenses
if it files a return before respondent prepares a substitute
return for it. We also note the legislative history underlying
the 1954 Code to the effect that Congress did not then believe
that a timely filing requirement was included within section 882.
27 The 1939 Code was enacted approximately 4 months after
the release of Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner,
supra.
Page: Previous 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011