- 18 -
U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837,
842-844 (1984). In addition, as applicable to taxpayers who file
consolidated returns, such as here, the Commissioner has vast
authority to prescribe regulations to curtail or otherwise
address any perceived abuse. See United Dominion Indus., Inc. v.
United States, 532 U.S. 822, 836-837 (2001).
Respondent also argues for a contrary reading, noting that
Peoples and Investments consolidated their assets, liabilities,
income, and expenses for financial and regulatory accounting
purposes.5 We are unpersuaded by this argument. Neither
financial nor regulatory accounting controls the manner in which
a taxpayer must report its operations for Federal income tax
purposes. See Thor Power Tool Co. v. Commissioner, 439 U.S. 522,
542-543 (1979); Signet Banking Corp. v. Commissioner, 106 T.C.
117, 130-131 (1996), affd. 118 F.3d 239 (4th Cir. 1997). In
fact, we note another major difference from the manner in which
Investments is treated for Federal income tax purposes; to wit,
that Investments is considered to be a financial institution for
Federal and State oversight purposes but is not considered to be
a bank or financial institution for Federal income tax purposes.
We also note that respondent has not argued, nor do we find, that
5 While the inconsistency between financial and regulatory
accounting, on the one hand, and tax accounting, on the other
hand, appears from the notice of deficiency to be a primary
determination by respondent, respondent in brief has relegated
this inconsistency to simply a factor to consider.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008