-89-
prior Anglo-Am. opinion) first adopted a foreign corporation tax
return “terminal date” or filing deadline (for purposes of
allowing deductions and credits to foreign corporations).
Thus, for more than 50 years, prior to 1990 when the
regulation in issue herein was promulgated and since the 1939
issuance of the opinion of the Board of Tax Appeals in Taylor
Sec., Inc., section 882(c)(2) and its predecessor were
interpreted and were held by Federal courts to be unclear and
incomplete as to the above corporate filing deadline, and the
courts recognized the need for and applied such a deadline. As
the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit stated explicitly in
Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 908:
It is true that this section contains no reference to a
time element. Nevertheless, we feel that the so-called
normal tax return filed by petitioner on Form 1120 was not
a sufficient or timely compliance with Section 233 [the
predecessor of section 882(c)(2)] to entitle the petitioner
to the deductions claimed therein. * * *
The above “judicially recognized need” for a foreign
corporate filing deadline (for purposes of allowing deductions
and credits under section 882(c)(2) and its predecessor)
provides perhaps the strongest support for the conclusion that
the regulation in issue is reasonable (i.e., the regulation
simply reflects the attempt by respondent and by the Treasury
Department to address via a formally promulgated regulation the
Page: Previous 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011