-90-
same need the courts addressed in Taylor Sec., Inc. v.
Commissioner, supra, and its progeny).
(3) The majority opinion’s description of section 1.882-
4(a)(2) and (3)(i), Income Tax Regs., as simply a reflection of
respondent’s “unsuccessful litigating position”, majority op.
p. 63, is inaccurate, which inaccuracy perhaps is explained by
the failure of the majority opinion to consider the specifics of
the filing deadline set forth in the regulation.
Although it early on, see majority op. note 4, sets forth
the language of section 1.882-4(a)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., the
majority opinion provides only two single-sentence, general
explanations of the filing deadline set forth therein, see
majority op. pp. 5, 48, and nowhere does the majority opinion
attempt to compare the filing deadline that was adopted and
applied by Taylor Sec., Inc. and its progeny with the specifics
of the filing deadline set forth in the regulation.
In that regard, the following explanation of the specifics
of the filing deadline set forth in section 1.882-4(a)(2) and
(3)(i), Income Tax Regs., may be helpful.
Section 1.882-4(a)(2) and the first sentence of (3)(i),
Income Tax Regs., explains that the “timely filing” deadline set
forth therein applies only in determining a foreign
corporation’s entitlement to deductions and credits under
section 882(c)(2). It does not constitute a generic timely
Page: Previous 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011