-98-
legislative reenactment doctrine to a revenue ruling because
“Without affirmative indications of congressional awareness and
consideration, we decline to cloak this revenue ruling with the
aura of legislative approval.”
(6) Finally, rather than expressing sympathy for
petitioner, see majority op. pp. 68, 72-74, whose Federal income
tax returns were due on November 15 of each year, the fact that
petitioner filed each of its 1993, 1994, 1995, and 1996 Federal
corporate income tax returns on July 23, 1999, some 2-5 years
after the return due dates and 9 years after section 1.882-
4(a)(2) and (3)(i), Income Tax Regs., was promulgated is hardly
indicative of a foreign corporation seeking to comply with U.S.
tax laws.
In conclusion, it is not respondent herein who is
attempting to resurrect anything, see majority op. p. 84.
Rather, it is the majority opinion that would resurrect Anglo-
Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711
(1938), and that would ignore later Board of Tax Appeals and
Court of Appeals opinions and litigation that concluded that the
statutory language of the predecessor of section 882(c)(2) was
incomplete and ambiguous and necessitated the adoption and
3(...continued)
1984). Note the prospective only effective date of the
regulation at issue herein, for taxable years ending after July
31, 1990. Sec. 1.882-4(a)(3)(i), Income Tax Regs.
Page: Previous 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011