- 17 -
Respondent contends that petitioner should not be allowed section
9100 relief to extend the time to make the section 475(f)
election because an election of the mark-to-market method of
accounting under section 475(f) is an accounting method
regulatory election.10 According to respondent, section 9100
relief is not available because section 301.9100-3(c)(2), Proced.
& Admin. Regs., presumes the interests of the Government to be
prejudiced, absent unusual and compelling circumstances not
present in the instant case. Respondent contends that, if
petitioner is permitted an extension of time to make the section
475(f) election, it impermissibly will give petitioner the
benefit of “hindsight”.
The interpretation of section 301.9100-3(c), Proced. &
Admin. Regs., and the parties’ arguments regarding section 9100
relief create issues of first impression in this Court. We begin
9(...continued)
475(g) compels the Commissioner to issue regulations outlining
the procedures for making the sec. 475(f) election, which the
Commissioner did not do, and cites Zinniel v. Commissioner, 89
T.C. 357 (1987), affd. 883 F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1989), in support
of his position.
Because we hold, for reasons stated below, that petitioner
is entitled to sec. 9100 relief, we do not need to decide
questions relating to the validity of the limitations set forth
in Rev. Proc. 99-17, supra.
10See sec. 301.9100-1(b), Proced. & Admin. Regs.,
(“Regulatory election means an election whose due date is
prescribed by a regulation published in the Federal Register, or
a revenue ruling, revenue procedure, notice, or announcement
published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin”.).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011