department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact ---------------------- id no ------------ telephone number ------------- ------ refer reply to cc psi b04 plr-140809-15 date date internal_revenue_service number release date index number ------------------------ ---------------------------- ---------------------------------------- re e re -------------------------------------- legend decedent ------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------- spouse ------------------- date ----------------------- date ---------------------------------- dear -------------- this letter responds to your representative’s letter of date requesting an extension of time pursuant to sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to make the portability election under sec_2010 of the internal_revenue_code code to allow a decedent’s surviving_spouse to take into account that decedent’s deceased spousal unused exclusion dsue amount the facts and representations submitted are as follows decedent died on date survived by spouse date is a date after the effective date of the amendment to sec_2010 which provides for portability of a dsue amount to a surviving_spouse to obtain the benefit of portability of decedent’s dsue amount to spouse decedent’s estate was required to file form_706 united_states estate and generation-skipping_transfer_tax return on or before the date that is months after decedent’s date of death or the last day of the period covered by an extension decedent’s form_706 was due on date but the estate did not file a form_706 to make the portability election the failure to elect portability was discovered after the due_date for making the election spouse as the executor of decedent’s estate represents that the value of decedent’s gross_estate is less than the basic exclusion amount in the year of decedent’s death plr-140809-15 and that during her lifetime decedent made no taxable_gifts as executor spouse requests an extension of time pursuant to sec_301_9100-3 to elect portability of decedent’s dsue amount pursuant to sec_2010 law and analysis sec_2001 imposes a tax on the transfer of the taxable_estate of every decedent who is a citizen or resident_of_the_united_states sec_2010 provides that a credit of the applicable credit_amount shall be allowed to the estate of every decedent against the tax imposed by sec_2001 sec_2010 provides that the applicable credit_amount is the amount of the tentative_tax that would be determined under sec_2001 if the amount with respect to which such tentative_tax is to be computed were equal to the applicable_exclusion_amount on date congress amended sec_2010 effective for estates of decedents dying and gifts made after date to allow portability of a decedent’s unused applicable_exclusion_amount between spouses tax relief unemployment insurance reauthorization and job creation act of pub_l_no sec_303 124_stat_3296 sec_2010 provides that the applicable_exclusion_amount is the sum of the basic exclusion amount and in the case of a surviving_spouse the dsue amount sec_2010 generally provides that the basic exclusion amount is dollar_figure to be adjusted for inflation annually after calendar_year sec_2010 defines the dsue amount to mean the lesser_of a the basic exclusion amount or b the excess of -- i the applicable_exclusion_amount of the last deceased spouse of the surviving_spouse over ii the amount with respect to which the tentative_tax is determined under sec_2001 on the estate of such deceased spouse sec_2010 provides that a dsue amount may not be taken into account by a surviving_spouse under sec_2010 unless the executor of the estate of the deceased spouse files an estate_tax_return on which such amount is computed and makes an election on such return that such amount may be so taken into account the election once made shall be irrevocable no election may be made if such return is filed after the time prescribed by law including extensions for filing such return sec_2010 provides that the secretary shall prescribe regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to implement sec_2010 plr-140809-15 sec_20_2010-2t a of the estate_tax regulations as in effect on date provides that to allow a decedent’s surviving_spouse to take into account that decedent’s dsue amount the executor of the decedent’s estate must elect portability of the dsue amount on a timely filed form_706 under sec_20_2010-2t a the due_date of an estate_tax_return required to elect portability is nine months after the decedent’s date of death or the last day of the period covered by an extension if an extension of time for filing has been granted under sec_20_2010-2t a the portability election is made by timely filing a complete and properly prepared estate_tax_return unless the executor satisfies the requirements for the election not to apply in sec_20_2010-2t a i sec_301_9100-1 provides that the commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time under the rules set forth in sec_301_9100-2 and sec_301_9100-3 to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the code except subtitles e g h and i sec_301_9100-1 provides that the term statutory election means an election whose due_date is prescribed by statute the term 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 sec_301_9100-3 provides the standards the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election whose due_date is prescribed by a regulation and not expressly provided by statute a request for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish to the satisfaction of the commissioner that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government sec_301_9100-3 provides that a taxpayer is deemed to have acted reasonably and in good_faith if the taxpayer reasonably relied on a qualified_tax professional including a tax professional employed by the taxpayer and the tax professional failed to make or advise the taxpayer to make the election the due_date for the portability election is prescribed by statute in the case of an estate required to file an estate_tax_return under sec_6018 see sec_2010 sec_6075 and sec_6018 in the case of an estate that is not required to file an estate_tax_return under sec_6018 the due_date is prescribed by regulation see sec_20_2010-2t a see also sec_20_2010-2 and revproc_2014_18 2014_7_irb_513 sec_2 plr-140809-15 accordingly in the latter case a taxpayer may seek an extension of time to elect portability under the provisions of sec_301_9100-3 sec_6018 requires the filing of an estate_tax_return in all cases where the gross_estate exceeds the basic exclusion amount in effect under sec_2010 for the calendar_year which includes the date of death for purposes of this determination under sec_6018 the basic exclusion amount is reduced but not below zero by the sum of -- a the amount of the adjusted_taxable_gifts within the meaning of sec_2001 made by the decedent after date plus b the aggregate amount allowed as a specific exemption under sec_2521 as in effect before its repeal by the tax reform act of with respect to gifts made by the decedent after date as executor spouse represents that based on the value of the gross_estate and taking into account any taxable_gifts decedent’s estate is not required to file an estate_tax_return under sec_6018 under these facts the commissioner has discretionary authority under sec_301_9100-3 to grant to decedent’s estate an extension of time to elect portability based on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that the requirements of sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied accordingly we grant an extension of time of days from the date of this letter in which to elect portability under sec_2010 the election should be made by filing a complete and properly prepared form_706 and a copy of this letter within days from the date of this letter to the cincinnati service_center at the following address internal_revenue_service cincinnati service_center stop cincinnati oh for purposes of electing portability a form_706 filed by decedent’s estate within days from the date of this letter will be considered to be timely filed the rulings contained in this letter are based upon information and representations submitted by the taxpayer and accompanied by a penalty of perjury statement executed by an appropriate party while this office has not verified any of the material submitted in support of the request for rulings it is subject_to verification on examination if it is later determined that based on the value of the gross_estate and taking into account any taxable_gifts decedent’s estate is required to file an estate_tax_return pursuant to sec_6018 the commissioner is without authority under sec_301_9100-3 to grant to decedent’s estate an extension of time to elect portability and the grant of the extension referred to in this letter is deemed null and void this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent plr-140809-15 in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative sincerely associate chief_counsel passthroughs and special industries karlene lesho karlene lesho senior technician reviewer branch enclosure copy of letter for sec_6110 purposes


internal_revenue_service number release date index number ------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ------------------------------ ------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact -------------------------- id no ------------- telephone number --------------------- refer reply to cc corp b05 plr-134643-07 date date -------------------------------- ------------- legend parent ------------------------------------------------------------ sub1 ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ sub2 ---------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------ statea year --------------------------------------------------------------- datea dateb parent official-1 -------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- parent official-2 ------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- tax professional --------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------- --------------------- --------------------- ------------------- ---------------------------------- this letter responds to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of plr-134643-07 ----------------------------------------------------------- dear --------------- parent requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-1 through of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election the extension is being requested for parent and its subsidiaries to make an election to file a consolidated federal_income_tax return with parent as the common parent under sec_1_1502-75 of the income_tax regulations hereinafter referred to as the election effective for the year taxable_year additional information was received in a letter dated date the material information is summarized below parent is a general_partnership formed on datea under the laws of statea parent has elected to be treated as a corporation for federal_income_tax purposes filing a form_8832 entity election effective on the date of formation parent as of the end of year directly held all the stock in a domestic subsidiary sub1 and this subsidiary directly held all the stock in a second domestic subsidiary sub2 an election under sec_1_1502-75 for the parent affiliated_group to file a consolidated_return for the year was due on dateb however for various reasons a valid election was not timely filed subsequently this request was submitted under sec_301_9100-3 for an extension of time to file the election the period of limitations on assessment under sec_6501 of the code has not expired for parent’s sub1’s or sub2’s taxable years for which they wish to make the election or for any taxable_year that would be affected by the election had it been timely filed sec_1_1502-75 provides that a group which did not file a consolidated_return for the immediately preceding_taxable_year may file a consolidated_return in lieu of separate returns for the taxable_year provided that each corporation which has been a member of the group during any part of the taxable_year for which the consolidated_return is to be filed consents to the regulations under sec_1502 if a group wishes to exercise its privilege of filing a consolidated_return such consolidated_return must be filed not later than the last day prescribed by law including extensions of time for filing the common parent’s return extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code except subtitles e g h and i commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make a regulatory election sec_301_9100-1 sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner has discretion to grant a reasonable sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards the in this case the time for filing the election is fixed by the regulations ie based on the facts and information submitted including the representations plr-134643-07 extensions of time for making certain elections requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government sec_301_9100-3 sec_1_1502-75 therefore the commissioner has discretionary authority under sec_301_9100-3 to grant an extension of time for parent and its subsidiaries to file the election provided parent and its subsidiaries acted reasonably and in good_faith the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government information affidavits and representations submitted by parent parent official- parent official-2 and tax professional explain the circumstances that resulted in the failure to timely file the election the information establishes that the request for relief was filed before the failure to make the election was discovered by the internal_revenue_service and that the interests of the government will not be prejudiced if relief is granted see sec_301_9100-3 made we conclude that parent and its subsidiaries have shown they acted reasonably and in good_faith the requirements of sec_301_9100-1 and sec_301_9100-3 are satisfied and granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government accordingly an extension of time is granted under sec_301_9100-3 until days from the date on this letter for parent and its includible subsidiaries to file the election by filing a consolidated_return with parent as the common parent and attaching a form_1122 for each of the subsidiaries for the year taxable_year subsidiaries’ tax_liability if any being not lower in the aggregate for all years to which the election applies and all subsequent years than it would have been if the election had been timely made taking into account the time_value_of_money no opinion is expressed as to the taxpayers’ tax_liability for the years involved a determination thereof will be made by the director’s office upon audit of the federal_income_tax returns involved further no opinion is expressed as to the federal_income_tax effect if any if it is determined that the taxpayers’ tax_liability is lower sec_301_9100-3 we express no opinion as to whether in fact parent and its subsidiaries qualify substantively to file a consolidated_return in addition we express no opinion as to the tax effects or any other tax consequences of filing the return or the election late under the provisions of any other section of the code and regulations or as to the tax treatment of any conditions existing at the time of or effects resulting from filing the the above extension of time is conditioned on the taxpayers' parent's and its caveat furthermore except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or plr-134643-07 return or the election late that are not specifically set forth in the above ruling for purposes of granting relief under sec_301_9100-3 we relied on certain statements and representations made by parent parent official-1 parent official-2 and tax professional however the appropriate service office should verify all essential facts in addition notwithstanding that an extension is granted under sec_301_9100-3 to file the election penalties and interest that would otherwise be applicable if any continue to apply implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any matter or item discussed or referenced in this letter including whether or not or when parent’s election to be taxed as a corporation was effective k of the code provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent it is important that a copy of this letter be attached to any income_tax return to which it is relevant alternatively a taxpayer filing its return electronically may satisfy this requirement by attaching to the return a statement that provides the date and control number plr-134643-07 of this ruling letter this ruling letter is directed only to the taxpayer s who requested it section procedural statements pursuant to a power_of_attorney on file in this matter a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative sincerely _ken cohen______________ ken cohen senior technician reviewer branch office of associate chief_counsel corporate


qwhuqdo 5hyhqxh 6huylfh department of the treasury number release date index no legend washington dc person to contact telephone number refer reply to cc ita - plr-119110-00 date date taxpayer company website charity vendor dear this responds to your letter dated date incorporating some of the material contained in your letter dated date and other supplemental material in which you request rulings related to sec_61 and sec_170 of the internal_revenue_code the following rulings are requested rulings requested if taxpayer purchases items through website company as agent for taxpayer receives a rebate from vendor and taxpayer elects to donate the rebate to charity the donation is a charitable_contribution deductible under sec_170 of the code taxpayer’s charitable_contribution is deductible in the year that company transmits taxpayer’s rebate to charity and the rebate is not includible in taxpayer’s gross_income general facts taxpayer is an individual who itemizes deductions on schedule a of her federal_income_tax return company is a for-profit corporation that is the registered copyright trademark and domain name owner of website website is an e-commerce internet shopping webpage through which a customer may purchase products from specialty boutiques and companies selling general consumer products for each purchase company receives a commission from the vendor and as agent for the customer plr-119110-00 receives from the vendor a rebate equal to a specified percentage of the purchase_price which the customer chooses to either receive in cash or donate to charity company’s shopping service program a customer engages website through the internet by logging on either directly to website or by means of an internet link from a charity’s website website is affiliated with several charitable organizations described in sec_170 which place website’s icon on their websites in a prominent position if a customer enters the website of a charity with which website is contractually affiliated the customer is advised that if the customer wishes to make a charitable donation in connection with the purchase of certain items the customer may click on website’s logo this transfers the customer to website upon entering website a customer is informed about company’s program the customer is told that if he or she shops through company’s shopping service program the customer receives a rebate from the vendor which the customer may either donate to a charity or receive in cash before purchasing any items the customer must exercise one of these options to make a purchase a customer clicks on a link of a general category of items and chooses a particular company from which to make purchases the customer thereafter selects an item to purchase giving a credit card or charge card number for payment each vendor from which a customer makes a purchase pays a commission to company the vendor also pays a rebate to company as agent for each purchasing customer amounts received by company as agent for its customers from vendors if designated to be donated to charity are held in a non-interest bearing account until disbursed to the designated charity once funds are transferred to a charity the transfer is irreversible even in the event of a customer’s return of an item purchased through website where the customer had elected to make a donation to a charity amounts already paid to the charity are not returned to the customer company or the vendor the participating charity agrees to provide the customer upon request with the contemporaneous written acknowledgment required by sec_170 company agrees to provide the participating charity with information to help charity prepare this acknowledgment taxpayer’s proposed transaction taxpayer plans to purchase products from vendor through website vendor agrees to pay a commission to company in addition vendor agrees to pay a rebate to company as agent for taxpayer which taxpayer will elect to donate to charity a charitable_organization described in sec_170 plr-119110-00 ruling_request 1-charitable contribution under sec_170 law and analysis taxpayer first asks us to rule that in the event she purchases items through website company as agent for taxpayer receives a rebate from vendor and taxpayer elects to donate the rebate to charity the donation is a charitable_contribution deductible under sec_170 of the code a charitable_contribution must be made voluntarily and with donative_intent u s v american bar endowment 477_us_105 in american bar endowment a membership_organization maintained a group_insurance program for its members as a condition of participating in the insurance program members were required to assign refunds from their premiums to the organization every year a portion of the insurance premiums_paid by members was refunded to the organization the organization used these refunds to fund charitable grants members participating in the group_insurance program claimed charitable_contribution deductions under sec_170 for their pro-rata shares of the refund amounts that funded charitable activities the supreme court concluded that there was no voluntary payment of money or property the court suggested that it would have reached a different result if the organization were to give each member a choice between retaining his pro-rata share of dividends or assigning them to the organization id pincite in the present case taxpayer will have such a choice she will have the opportunity to donate the rebate held by company on her behalf to charity or to direct company to pay it to her this element of choice distinguishes the company program from the group_insurance program at issue in american bar endowment where those who wished to participate in the group_insurance program could not decline to have their premium refunds transferred to a charitable_organization the opportunity to decide whether payments will be made to a charity or received in cash renders the payments voluntary if taxpayer complies with the substantiation requirements under sec_170 and all of the other requirements under sec_170 she will be allowed a deduction for the charitable_contribution of her rebate ruling_request 2-taxable year of deduction taxpayer next asks us to rule that her charitable_contribution is deductible in the year that company transmits her rebate to charity revrul_78_38 1978_1_cb_67 holds that a charitable_contribution effected by means of a bank credit card is deductible in the year the charge is made however in the present case although the charitable_contribution arises as a result of taxpayer's purchase of an item using a credit or debit card the charitable_contribution is not actually made by use of the card plr-119110-00 revrul_55_192 1955_1_cb_294 concludes that the portion of a social club’s membership dues earmarked by a taxpayer for distribution to a qualified charity and paid to the club’s treasurer may give rise to a deductible charitable_contribution because the social club’s treasurer also serves as an authorized agent of the donee charitable_organization the ruling allows the deduction in the year the dues are paid to the treasurer the ruling states that if the treasurer had not been designated by the charitable_organization as its agent the contributions would have been deductible only in the year in which they were actually transferred to the charitable_organization in revrul_85_184 1985_2_cb_84 a utility company enters into an agreement with a local chapter of a charitable_organization to collect contributions for a program providing emergency energy assistance to elderly and handicapped persons the charity designates the utility company as its authorized agent to collect contributions on the charity’s behalf utility company customers are given the opportunity to make contributions to the emergency energy assistance program by making payments to the utility company in an amount earmarked by the customer for donation in excess of their monthly bills the revenue_ruling holds that customers making such extra payments are entitled to a deduction for a charitable_contribution under sec_170 as the utility company is acting as the agent for the charity revrul_85_184 holds that the deduction is allowed in the taxable_year the extra payment is made to the utility company a charitable_contribution paid to an agent of a charitable_organization is deductible when paid to the agent sec_1_170a-1 of the income_tax regulations see also revrul_55_192 and revrul_85_184 in this case however company does not serve as the agent for charity rather company is authorized to act on taxpayer’s behalf while the rebates are held by company taxpayer retains control_over them taxpayer may decide to receive them in cash or she can have company transfer them to a charitable_organization therefore company serves as the agent for taxpayer with respect to the rebates it holds delivery to a third party for subsequent delivery to a charitable_organization does not satisfy the requirement of delivery 45_tc_106 steele's mills v commissioner 4_bta_960 there is no delivery of a charitable_contribution when company receives an amount as agent for taxpayer delivery occurs when company transfers the amount to charity therefore taxpayer will be entitled to claim a charitable_contribution_deduction only during the taxable_year in which company transfers the amount it holds on taxpayer’s behalf to charity ruling_request rebates not included in income lastly taxpayer asks us to rule that she does not realize any income from any rebates she receives a rebate received from the party to whom the buyer directly or indirectly paid the purchase_price for an item is a reduction in the purchase_price of the item it is not an plr-119110-00 accession to wealth and is not includible in the buyer’s gross_income see revrul_76_96 1976_1_cb_23 revrul_84_41 1984_1_cb_130 in this case when taxpayer purchases a product on website company receives from vendor a rebate as agent for taxpayer which she may choose to receive in cash from company or donate to a charity this payment constitutes a reduction in the purchase_price and thus is a rebate pursuant to revrul_76_96 and revrul_84_41 the rebate is not includible in taxpayer’s gross_income conclusions when company transfers the amount it holds as agent for taxpayer to charity the amount so transferred is a charitable_contribution deductible by taxpayer to the extent provided by sec_170 taxpayer is entitled to a charitable_contribution_deduction under sec_170 in the year that company acting as taxpayer’s agent transfers taxpayer’s rebate to charity the payment received by company as agent for taxpayer from vendor is a rebate and is therefore not includible in taxpayer’s gross_income a copy of this letter must be attached to any income_tax return to which it is relevant we enclose a copy of the letter for this purpose also enclosed is a copy of the letter_ruling showing the deletions proposed to be made in the letter when it is disclosed under sec_6110 of the internal_revenue_code except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any item discussed or referenced in this letter moreover no opinion is expressed about the tax consequences to company or charity this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent sincerely associate chief_counsel income_tax accounting by karin g gross senior technician reviewer branch cc


internal_revenue_service number release date index numbers ----------------------------- ------------------------------------- ----------------------- -------------------------------- ------------------------------------- --------------------------------------- department of the treasury washington dc third party communication none date of communication not applicable_person to contact ----------------- id no ------------ telephone number --------------------- refer reply to cc psi plr-122157-09 date date legend x --------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- -------------------------- ----------------- ---------------- d1 d2 country dear ----------- this is in response to a letter dated date submitted on behalf of x requesting an extension of time under sec_301_9100-3 of the procedure and administration regulations to file an election under sec_301_7701-3 to be treated as a disregarded_entity for federal tax purposes facts according to the information submitted x was formed on d1 under the laws of country x intended to be treated as a disregarded_entity for federal tax purposes effective d2 however x inadvertently failed to timely file form_8832 entity classification election to be treated as a disregarded_entity for federal tax purposes effective d2 plr-122157-09 law and analysis sec_301_7701-3 provides that a business_entity that is not classified as a corporation under sec_301_7701-2 or an eligible_entity can elect its classification for federal tax purposes an eligible_entity with a single owner can elect to be classified as an association or to be disregarded as an entity separate from its owner sec_301_7701-3 provides guidance on the classification of a foreign eligible_entity for federal tax purposes generally a foreign eligible_entity is treated as an association if all members have limited_liability unless the entity makes an election to be treated otherwise a foreign eligible_entity with a single owner having limited_liability may elect to be treated as a disregarded_entity pursuant to the rules of sec_301_7701-3 sec_301_7701-3 and iii provides that an entity classification election must be filed on form_8832 and can be effective up to days prior to the date the form is filed or up to months after the date the form is filed sec_301_7701-3 provides that an election under sec_301_7701-3 must be signed by - a each member of the electing entity who is an owner at the time the election is filed or b any officer manager or member of the electing entity who is authorized under local law or the entity’s organizational documents to make the election and who represents to having such authorization under penalties of perjury sec_301_7701-3 provides that if a purchasing_corporation makes an election under sec_338 regarding an acquired subsidiary an election under sec_301 c i for the acquired subsidiary can be effective no earlier than the day after the acquisition_date within the meaning of sec_338 under sec_301_9100-1 the commissioner may grant a reasonable extension of time to make a regulatory election or a statutory election but no more than six months except in the case of a taxpayer who is abroad under all subtitles of the internal_revenue_code except subtitles e g h and i section b defines the term regulatory election as including an election whose due_date is prescribed by a regulation published in the federal_register sec_301_9100-1 through provide the standards that the commissioner will use to determine whether to grant an extension of time to make an election sec_301_9100-1 sec_301_9100-2 provides automatic extensions of time for making certain elections sec_301_9100-3 provides rules for requesting extensions of time for regulatory elections that do not meet the requirements of sec_301_9100-2 plr-122157-09 requests for relief under sec_301_9100-3 will be granted when the taxpayer provides evidence to establish that the taxpayer acted reasonably and in good_faith and that granting relief will not prejudice the interests of the government conclusion based solely on the facts submitted and the representations made we conclude that the requirements of sec_301_9100-3 have been satisfied as a result x is granted an extension of time of days from the date of this letter to file a properly executed form_8832 effective d2 with the appropriate service_center to elect to be classified as a disregarded_entity a copy of this letter should be attached to the form_8832 except as expressly provided herein no opinion is expressed or implied concerning the tax consequences of any aspect of any transaction or item discussed or referenced in this letter this ruling is directed only to the taxpayer requesting it sec_6110 provides that it may not be used or cited as precedent in accordance with the power_of_attorney on file with this office a copy of this letter is being sent to your authorized representative sincerely curt g wilson curt g wilson associate chief_counsel passthroughs special industries enclosures copy of this letter copy for sec_6110 purposes


t c no united_states tax_court roberta borenstein petitioner v commissioner of internal revenue respondent docket no filed date p’s return for the taxable_year was originally due on date she requested and received a six-month extension of time to file that return by virtue of that extension the due_date for filing her return was date p made tax_payments for totaling dollar_figure all of these payments were deemed made on date see sec_6513 p did not file a return for by date or during the ensu- ing months on date r issued p a notice_of_deficiency for on date shortly before filing her petition p submitted a delinquent_return for that reported a tax_liability of dollar_figure p and r agree that p for has a deficiency of dollar_figure and an over- payment of dollar_figure r contends that p is not entitled under sec_6511 and b b to a credit or refund of this overpayment because her tax_payments were made outside the applicable lookback period keyed to the date on which the notice_of_deficiency was mailed p contends that she is eligible for the three-year lookback period specified in the final sentence of sec_6512 and that she is entitled to a refund of dollar_figure under that provision held p is not eligible for the three-year lookback period specified in the final sentence of sec_6512 because the notice_of_deficiency was not mailed to her during the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax held further p did not file her income_tax return be- fore the notice_of_deficiency was issued and did not pay her tax_liability within two years of the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency this court therefore lacks jurisdiction to award a refund_or_credit of p’s dollar_figure overpayment for kendall c jones and joseph m depew for petitioner bartholomew cirenza and william j gregg for respondent a memorandum amici curiae was filed by t keith fogg and w edward afield as attorneys for the philip c cook low-income taxpayer clinic and the harvard federal tax clinic opinion lauber judge the parties submitted this case for decision without trial under rule in a stipulation of settled issues they have agreed that petitioner has a deficiency of dollar_figure for the taxable_year and an overpayment of dollar_figure the question remaining for decision is whether we have jurisdiction to determine a refund_or_credit of this overpayment sec_6512 grants this court jurisdiction to determine an overpay- ment for a year for which the court has also determined a deficiency or has decid- ed that there is no deficiency however sec_6512 places a limit on the amount of credit or refund that may be allowed that limit is determined by the amount of tax that was paid during one of three lookback periods from the date on which the notice_of_deficiency was mailed the question we must decide is whether petitioner who did not file a timely return is limited to the two-year lookback period in sec_6511 and b b or instead is eligible for the three-year lookback period specified in the final sen- tence of sec_6512 although we are sympathetic to petitioner’s position 1all statutory references are to the internal_revenue_code code in effect at all relevant times and all rule references are to the tax_court rules_of_practice and procedure we round all monetary amounts to the nearest dollar we are unable to conclude that her situation falls within the scope of that provision when we construe it according to its plain meaning we accordingly have no alternative but to hold that she is not entitled to a refund_or_credit of the stipulated overpayment of dollar_figure background there is no dispute as to the following facts which are drawn from the par- ties’ stipulation of settled issues stipulation of facts and attached exhibits peti- tioner resided in connecticut when she filed her petition petitioner’s federal_income_tax return for was originally due for filing on date on that date she secured a six-month extension of time to file that return see sec_6081 by virtue of that extension the due_date for her return was date as of date petitioner had made toward her expected tax_liability estimated_tax payments aggregating dollar_figure she enclosed an additional payment of dollar_figure with her extension request thus as of date her tax_payments for totaled dollar_figure that total amount was deemed paid on date see sec_6513 petitioner made no subsequent payments toward her tax_liability petitioner did not file a return for by the date due_date or during the ensuing months on date the internal_revenue_service irs or respondent sent her a timely notice_of_deficiency that determined a defi- ciency of dollar_figure and additions to tax under sec_6651 and and the bulk of the omitted income generating this deficiency stemmed from gross_proceeds from securities sales on date she timely peti- tioned this court shortly before filing her petition petitioner submitted to the irs philadel- phia pennsylvania service_center a delinquent_return for this return filed on date reported an income_tax_liability of dollar_figure which the parties agree is correct because petitioner did not submit this return until after the notice_of_deficiency was issued her deficiency for is dollar_figure the parties agree that she is not liable for additions to tax under sec_6651 or but that she is liable for a dollar_figure addition_to_tax under sec_6654 the return petitioner filed on date reported an overpayment of dollar_figure at no time before filing that return had petitioner submitted a claim_for_refund of any portion of this overpayment the parties have since stipulated that petitioner’s correct overpayment for is dollar_figure viz dollar_figure in total pay- ments minus the dollar_figure tax_liability the question we must decide is whether petitioner is entitled to a credit or refund of this overpayment discussion the taxpayer bears the burden of proving her entitlement to a refund_or_credit rule a butts v commissioner tcmemo_2015_74 109_tcm_1392 petitioners do not contend that the burden_of_proof should shift to respondent under sec_7491 in any event because the question pre- sented is solely one of law the burden_of_proof is irrelevant see eg 115_tc_523 i governing statutory framework once this court has jurisdiction over a deficiency case sec_6512 provides that if the court finds that there is a deficiency but that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such tax the court shall have jurisdiction to deter- mine the amount of such overpayment in that event the amount of the overpayment shall when the decision of the tax_court has become final be cred- ited or refunded to the taxpayer ibid the general_rule set forth above is subject_to the proviso in sec_6512 captioned limit on amount of credit or refund as the supreme court noted when interpreting this provision years ago the statutory scheme is not elegant but is arguably straightforward 516_us_235 sec_6512 provides that n o such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the tax_court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid within one of three specified time periods the parties agree that the time period relevant here is set forth in sec_6512 subparagraph b refers to tax paid within the period which would be ap- plicable under sec_6511 c or d if on the date of the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency a claim had been filed whether or not filed stating the grounds upon which the tax_court finds that there is an overpayment sec_2section b a is inapplicable here because it refers to tax paid after the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency petitioner paid the tax at issue on date more than two years before the notice_of_deficiency was mailed sec_6512 is likewise inapplicable because it refers to tax paid within the limitations_period for a claim_for_refund filed before the date of the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency petitioner’s only claim_for_refund took the form of her delinquent return which was submitted on date more than two months after the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency on date 3the filing of a return reporting an overpayment generally constitutes the filing of a claim_for_refund mcgregor v united_states ct_cl sec_301_6402-3 proced admin regs but the converse is not true for the deemed claim_for_refund under sec_6512 that deemed claim does not constitute a deemed return lundy u s pincite as a result sec_6512 does not incorporate a uniform 3-year look-back period for tax_court cases id pincite c and d sets forth special rules that have no application to this case the parties accordingly agree that as relevant here subparagraph b incorporates the lookback periods of sec_6511 sec_6511 provides for two alternative lookback periods a three- year period and a two-year period butts t c m cch pincite5 see sec_6511 and b as the supreme court has explained the statute di- rects the tax_court to determine the applicable_period by inquiring into the timeli- ness of a hypothetical claim_for_refund filed ‘on the date of the mailing of the no- tice of deficiency ’ lundy u s pincite quoting sec_6512 see butts t c m cch pincite sec_6511 defines the applicable lookback period where a re- fund claim was filed within years from the time the return was filed sec_6511 cross-referenced in sec_6511 here the hypothetical refund claim is deemed to have been filed on date when the notice of defi- ciency was mailed and petitioner’s delinquent return was filed two months later on date because the hypothetical refund claim was filed before the tax_return it was not filed within years from the time the return was filed sec_6511 governs situations where the period of limitations has been extended by agreement sec_6511 sets forth special rules for among other things bad_debt losses net operating losses and foreign tax_credits as sec_6511 requires see lundy u s pincite this will often be the result in the case of nonfilers like petitioner here they frequently will not have filed a return if at all until after a notice_of_deficiency was mailed to them where the lookback period in sec_6511 does not apply the ap- plicable lookback period is that specified in sec_6511 if the claim was not filed within such 3-year period the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the years immediately preceding the filing of the claim petitioner’s hypothetical refund claim is deemed to have been filed on date and she made her dollar_figure tax payment on date more than two years previously because no portion of the tax was paid within the two-year lookback period prescribed by sec_6511 no credit or refund would be allowable for petitioner’s dollar_figure overpayment under sec_6512 as in- terpreted by the supreme court in lundy see lundy u s pincite holding that in the case of a nonfiler the proper application of sec_6512 requires that a 2-year look-back period be applied in response to the supreme court’s decision in lundy congress amended sec_6512 see taxpayer_relief_act_of_1997 pub_l_no sec_1282 and b stat pincite8 this amendment essentially overturned lundy 120_tc_5 and provided a three-year rather than a two-year lookback period in certain circumstances where no return had been timely filed see butts t c m cch pincite n this amendment is codified in the final sentence of sec_6512 as follows in a case described in subparagraph b where the date of the mailing of the notice_of_deficiency is during the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax and no return was filed before such date the applicable_period under subsections a and b of sec_6511 shall be years congress made this amendment effective for taxable years that ended after date see brosi t c pincite it is this provision upon which petition- er relies in contending that she is entitled to a three-year lookback period which would yield a refund of her dollar_figure overpayment we turn now to the proper con- struction of this provision ii analysis a respondent’s position respondent offers what he believes to be a plain language interpretation of the final sentence of sec_6512 in his view the parenthetical phrase with extensions modifies due_date here the due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax was date pursuant to the automatic_extension petitioner received to file her return the third year after that date began on date but the notice_of_deficiency was mailed on date that date was during the second year not during the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the re- turn as the amendment requires respondent accordingly contends that the exception set forth in the final sentence of sec_6512 does not apply with the result that a refund_or_credit of petitioner’s dollar_figure overpayment is barred by the two-year lookback rule generally applicable to nonfilers this case is one of first impression because it is the first time this court has been called upon to interpret the final sentence of sec_6512 as applied to the fact pattern presented here however statements in our prior cases support or are at least consistent with respondent’s position that the parenthetical phrase with extensions modifies due_date the immediately preceding noun in petty v commissioner tcmemo_2010_63 99_tcm_1248 the taxpayer received a four-month extension of time until date to file her return she never filed a return and the irs sent her a notice of de- 5the fact pattern presented here--ie where the notice_of_deficiency was mailed to a nonfiling taxpayer during the second year after the extended due_date for filing the return--was before the court in 115_tc_316 however the statutory amendment we are considering did not apply in that case because it involved a calendar taxable_year brosi t c pincite noting that this amendment was effective for taxable years ending after date see healer t c pincite ficiency on date interpreting the final sentence of sec_6512 as added by congress in we held that a three-year lookback period applied because the notice_of_deficiency was mailed during the third year after the ex- tended due_date for filing petitioner’s return the due_date for filing petitioner’s tax_return was date because the notice_of_deficiency was mailed in the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the tax_return the applicable_period during which an overpayment may be refunded under sec_6512 and sec_6511 i sec_3 years from the date on which the notice_of_deficiency was mailed see sec_6512 flush language id t c m cch pincite on two other occasions we have interpreted the final sentence of sec_6512 as applied to taxpayers who did not secure extensions of time to file see 123_tc_132 n butts supra dic- ta in these cases appear consistent with respondent’s position that the parenthetical phrase with extensions modifies due_date we have discovered no prior opin- ion of this court or of any other court that suggests anything to the contrary b petitioner’s position petitioner and amici curiae urge us to reject respondent’s interpretation of the statute although they advance a variety of arguments they begin with a prac- tical observation which is best illustrated by a series of hypotheticals petitioner paid her tax on date if the notice_of_deficiency had been mailed between that date and date she would be allowed a refund under the two-year lookback rule in sec_6512 and sec_6511 if the notice_of_deficiency had been mailed between october 6in zarky we simply noted that under the final sentence of sec_6512 the notice_of_deficiency must have been mailed to the taxpayer during the third year after the due_date for filing his return t c pincite in butts tcmemo_2015_74 the irs mailed the notices of deficiency on date during the fourth year after the original due_date of the return we held that the taxpayers did not qualify for a three-year lookback period noting the due_date for petitioners’ tax_return was date and no facts in the record indicate that petitioners sought or obtained a filing extension id pincite n 7amici curiae rely heavily on krape v commissioner tcmemo_2007_ 93_tcm_1239 but that case did not involve the statutory amendment at issue here the taxpayer there filed a delinquent_return before the irs mailed him a notice_of_deficiency so the final sentence of sec_6512 could not possibly have applied rather the court in krape was applying the general lookback rules of sec_6511 and sec_6512 and date she would be allowed a refund under the three-year lookback rule in the final sentence of sec_6512 as construed by respond- ent that is because the notice_of_deficiency would then have been mailed during the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the return sec_6512 but if the notice_of_deficiency was mailed between april and date--ie during the second half of the second year after the extended due_date as was true here--we would be unable to allow a refund under respondent’s construc- tion of the statute the result according to petitioner would be a six-month black hole period into which tax refunds disappear when a nonfiling taxpayer se- cures an extension of time to file according to amici curiae the idea that the tax_court should somehow be stripped of contiguous jurisdiction to issue refunds is unreasonable unsound and incongruous the arguments that petitioner and amici curiae advance against this result begin as they must with the text of the statute t he starting point for interpret- 8if the notice_of_deficiency had been mailed between april and date the final sentence of sec_6512 as construed by respondent would apply to petitioner but because all of her tax_payments were deemed made on date they would lie beyond the three-year lookback period specified in the final sentence of sec_6512 thus none of her payments would be eligible for refund see infra pp ing a statute is the language of the statute itself absent a clearly expressed legis- lative intention to the contrary that language must ordinarily be regarded as con- clusive 447_us_102 when the words of a statute are unambiguous ‘judicial inquiry is complete ’ 503_us_249 quoting 449_us_424 c ourts must presume that a legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says id pincite petitioner’s textual argument focuses on the parenthetical with exten- sions as it appears in the longer phrase during the third year after the due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax respondent contends that this parenthetical phrase modifies due_date the immediately preceding noun peti- tioner contends that with extensions should be taken instead to modify the third year a noun phrase that appears earlier in the sentence in that event the third year would be determined by reference to the original due_date for her return and would be prolonged to include the six-month extension period alternatively petitioner contends that with extensions should be taken to modify years the last two words in the sentence in that event sec_6512 would afford taxpayers a maximum lookback period not of three years but of years un- der either of these interpretations petitioner would get her refund we find neither of these constructions plausible from the standpoint of nor- mal english syntax a modifying phrase is normally read to modify the nearest plausible antecedent this rule is typically referred to as the last antecedent rule see eg 540_us_20 a limiting clause or phrase should ordinarily be read as modifying only the noun or phrase that it immediately follows 791_f3d_265 2d cir 749_f3d_148 2d cir 416_f3d_176 2d cir antonin scalia bryan a garner reading law the interpretation of legal text sec_144 this rule_of construction we think is especially powerful when the modify- ing phrase is embedded within a longer grammatical unit that has a familiar mean- ing or is a term of art here with extensions is embedded within the phrase due_date for filing the return of tax phrases similar to this appear through- out the code see eg sec_172 providing that an election shall be made by the due_date including extensions of time for filing the taxpayer’s return sec_408a t he due_date is the date prescribed by law including extensions of time for filing the taxpayer’s return in this tax context it seems clear that the phrase with extensions must modify due_date and must refer to extensions of time for filing the return of tax wholly apart from sentence structure construing with extensions to modi- fy due_date results in a more logical and natural reading congress knows that due dates for filing tax returns can be extended with extensions is thus read quite naturally to modify due_date years on the other hand do not have ex- tensions they cannot be extended but invariably end months after they begin congress is thus unlikely to have intended with extensions to modify years or the third year in a similar vein amici curiae urge that we consult the dictionary to learn that the preposition with has among its accepted meanings inclusive of but unless the parenthetical phrase is read to modify something other than due_date making this substitution does not help petitioner the due_date inclusive of ex- tensions for filing the return of tax was date--the same date pro- duced by respondent’s construction of the statute in effect amici curiae argue that we should view inclusive of as modifying the gestalt of the entire sentence ie the sentence should be read generously to be inclusive of taxpayers like petitioner that is not how prepositions work alternatively petitioner contends that we should interpret the final sentence of sec_6512 in conjunction with sec_6511 the latter pro- vision refers to tax paid within the period immediately preceding the filing of the claim equal to years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the re- turn in petitioner’s words the lookback period under this provision is three years plus the period of any extension of time ie the extension is tacked on to the normal three-year period petitioner urges that we should construe the final sentence of sec_6512 the same way ie to add the extension period to the end of the lookback period when the notice_of_deficiency is issued in the third year after the initial due_date of the return we find this argument unpersuasive first it is just a different way of stat- ing petitioner’s threshold argument namely that the parenthetical phrase with extensions does not modify due_date the immediately preceding noun but rather modifies years a noun phrase that appears at the end of the sentence after intervening words we have rejected that argument for the reasons pre- viously stated second petitioner’s argument ignores a significant difference in how the two statutory provisions are drafted in sec_6511 congress prescribed a variable lookback period and defined it as equal to years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return in the final sentence of sec_6512 by contrast congress prescribed a fixed lookback period years and provided that this lookback period would apply if the irs issued the notice_of_deficiency during a specified 12-month window of time namely during the third year the starting date for that third year is to be determined by reference to the due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax there is no textual justification in the final sentence of sec_6512 for interpreting with extensions as ex- panding a time period as opposed to defining a commencement_date third creating a lookback period of years as petitioner urges is at odds with the legislative_history sec_6511 has always provided alter- native lookback periods set forth in paragraphs a and b respectively and sec_6512 has always incorporated those two alternative periods by reference in acting to overturn lundy which had applied the two-year lookback period of sec_6511 congress opted for a fixed three-year lookback period see h_r rept no pincite 1997_4_cb_319 9the reference in the final sentence of sec_6512 to the applicable_period under subsections a and b of sec_6511 is clearly a reference to the lookback period under sec_6511 and not the limitations_period under sec_6511 see lundy u s pincite holding that the restrictions of sec_6512 governing the tax court’s authority to award a refund of overpaid taxes incorporate only the look-back period and not the filing deadline from sec_6511 stating that the amendment was designed to provide that the 3-year ‘look back’ rule rather than the 2-year ‘look back’ rule should apply there is no evidence that congress intended to create a lookback period of up to monthsdollar_figure petitioner next contends that her interpretation even if problematic on the plain meaning front is supported by the statute’s legislative_history statutory text is ambiguous where the ordinary and common meaning of the statutory language supports more than one interpretation 116_tc_87 where statutory language is ambiguous we may consult legislative_history to assist us in interpreting the language in question ibid we do not find the statutory text at issue to be ambiguous the phrase due_date with extensions for filing the return of tax does not have two possible 10two other principles caution against embracing the countertextual inter- pretation that petitioner and amici curiae urge first as the supreme court noted in lundy u s pincite this court’s ability to allow refunds of overpayments was codified by congress as a limit on our jurisdiction see sec_6512 and as a court of limited jurisdiction we may exercise jurisdiction only to the extent expressly authorized by congress 126_tc_1 declining to extend our collection_due_process jurisdiction to determine overpayments or order credits or refunds second by amending sec_6512 in to permit more liberal credit and refund of taxes paid congress was to that extent enacting a waiver of sovereign immunity such waiv- ers generally are strictly construed 563_us_277 a waiver of sovereign immunity ‘will be strictly construed in terms of its scope in favor of the sovereign ’ quoting 518_us_187 meanings rather we find it to have a single unambiguous meaning when con- strued in accordance with the ordinary language that congress employed peti- tioner seeks to inject ambiguity into this statute by positing that with extensions modifies other words that appear earlier or later in the sentence but because this interpretation does violence to the rules of ordinary english syntax it does not create an ambiguity in any event the legislative_history does not have the force that petitioner attributes to it congress in added a new final sentence to sec_6512 for the express purpose of overturning the supreme court’s construction of sec_6512 in lundy by amending the statute petitioner says congress intended to treat all nonfiling taxpayers with overpayments the same during the three-year period following the initial due dates of their returns under respond- ent’s plain meaning’ interpretation of the statute however nonfilers are treated differently depending on whether or not a filing extension was secured amici curiae argue that this result contradicts the congressional intent to ‘eliminate disparate treatment’ of taxpayers the legislative_history does not have the specificity or establish the breadth of purpose that petitioner asserts and we find the legislative_history insufficient to countermand the plain meaning of the words congress enacted in proposing the amendment the house report contrasted a taxpayer who does not file a return before a notice_of_deficiency is issued with an identical taxpayer who files a return by the date the notice is issued h_r rept no supra pincite c b vol pincite under lundy the former taxpayer would be subject_to a two- year lookback period while the latter would generally benefit from a three-year lookback period the report stated as the only express justification for the amendment that t he committee believes that it is appropriate to eliminate this disparate treatment ibid contrary to petitioner’s view this legislative_history does not establish con- gressional intent that all nonfilers be treated identically during the three-year period following the initial due dates of their returns nor does it establish intent that all nonfilers be treated the same without regard to whether they secured ex- tensions of time to file it is true that the taxpayer in lundy had not obtained an extension of time to file and the legislative_history nowhere mentions extensions of time to file but this does not mean as petitioner urges that the final flush language of sec_6512 should be interpreted so as to not inject filing ex- tensions into the lookback period mechanism quite the contrary since con- gress placed the phrase with extensions immediately after due_date congress itself injected filing extensions into the lookback period mechanism finally if we reject petitioner’s textual arguments and interpret the last sen- tence of sec_6512 according to the plain meaning urged by respondent petitioner contends that the statute would produce an absurd result the anti- absurdity canon of construction dates back many years see rector of holy trinity 143_us_457 if a literal construc- tion of the words of a statute be absurd the act must be so construed as to avoid the absurdity scalia garner supra pincite a provision may be either disregarded or judicially corrected as an error if failing to do so would result in a disposition that no reasonable person could approve 2a sutherland stat- utes and statutory construction sec_46 7th ed the anti-absurdity canon while of ancient pedigree is invoked by courts nowadays quite rarely in order for a party to show that a plain meaning con- struction of a statute would render it absurd the party must show that the result 11the supreme court in lundy disregarded a fair body of legislative_history arguably supporting a result opposite to that which it reached see u s pincite thomas j dissenting instead the majority believed itself bound by the terms congress chose to use when it drafted the statute id pincite like the majority in lundy we think it appropriate to construe sec_6512 accord- ing to the plain language that congress employed would be so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense 282_us_55 see 95_tc_495 citing harrelson as supplying the relevant stan- dard but upholding the plain language construction of the statute aff’d 12_f3d_1005 10th cir there are very few supreme court cases in which the anti-absurdity doc- trine arguably played a significant role in 490_us_504 the court declined to construe a federal rule_of evidence ac- cording to its plain language finding that language ambiguous and concluding that a literal reading would compel an odd result id pincite but another canon of construction was also relevant there namely that a statute regulation or rule should be construed to avoid constitutional problems see id pincite scalia j concurring noting that the rule at issue if interpreted literally produces an ab- surd and perhaps unconstitutional result see also nlrb v catholic bishop of chi 440_us_490 a n act of congress ought not be construed to violate the constitution if any other possible construction remains available 2a sutherland statutes and statutory construction sec_45 7th ed dollar_figure 12other supreme court cases have discussed though not literally invoked the anti-absurdity doctrine when construing statutes to avoid potentially uncon- continued in the absence of constitutional concerns the supreme court in recent de- cades has consistently held that unless a statute has conflicting provisions or ambiguous language the court’s role is to interpret the language of the statute enacted by congress 534_us_438 indeed the court has rejected challenges to statutes that have linguistically sound readings even though the result on substantive grounds may have struck some ob- servers as odd see eg 545_us_353 holding that the statute_of_limitations for collateral attacks on criminal convictions may expire before the decision supporting the challenge became applicable although a plain-language interpretation of the final sentence of sec_6512 produces an odd result in certain factual circumstances it does not render the operation of the statutory amendment as a whole absurd the amendment fully achieves congress’ remedial purpose for all taxpayers who do not seek extensions of time to file their returns for taxpayers who obtain exten- sions of time to file and do file their returns the amendment works no disadvant- age and for taxpayers who obtain extensions of time to file but neglect to file continued stitutional outcomes see eg 513_us_64 491_us_440 their returns the amendment as drafted may or may not be disadvantageous de- pending on when the irs happens to mail them a notice_of_deficiency if the phrase with extensions were to modify the third year as petition- er urges it would help a subset of nonfilers including petitioner the notice of de- ficiency in this case which was mailed on date would then have been mailed during the third year with extensions after date the original due_date for filing her return she would thus benefit from the three-year lookback period but the manner in which congress drafted the amendment means that this benefit would be limited in scope assume another subset of taxpayers situ- ated similarly to petitioner except that their notices of deficiency were mailed be- tween april and date the notices of deficiency would then have been mailed during the third year with extensions after date the original due_date for filing their returns although the final sentence of sec_6512 would apply to them it unfortunately would not help them that is because it prescribes a fixed three-year lookback period which would not reach tax_payments deemed made on date see sec_6513 as a result they would not be entitled to any refunds for the amendment to help both sets of taxpayers the phrase with extensions would need to modify not only the third year which appear words earlier but also years which appear words later to have it modi- fy either would violate normal english syntax to have it modify both would be a linguistic impossibility see 316_us_4 we must be wary against interpolating our notions of policy in the interstices of legislative provisions in short the amendment as enacted by congress does not produce ab- surd results rather because of what seems inartful drafting it has one or more gaps in coverage as has often been said courts should not attempt to fill statu- tory gaps in order to fashion judicial remedies see 540_us_526 if congress enacted into law something different from what it intended then it should amend the statute to conform it to its intent 511_us_39 kennedy j concurring it is beyond our province to rescue congress from its drafting errors and to provide what we might think is the preferred result anyone who has managed to plod thus far through this opinion will under- stand that the statutory provisions we are construing are extremely technical and complex it is possible that the drafters of the amendment did not think through all of the ramifications of congress’ decision to inject filing extensions into the lookback period mechanism as petitioner puts it but wittingly or un- wittingly congress placed the words with extensions in the text of the statute immediately after due_date we must give meaning to those words the text enacted by congress makes syntactic sense and has an unambig- uous meaning construing that text according to its plain meaning does not pro- duce a result so gross as to shock the general moral or common sense harrel- son u s pincite our unwillingness to soften the import of congress’ chosen words even if we believe the words lead to a harsh outcome is longstanding it re- sults from ‘deference to the supremacy of the legislature ’ lamie u s pincite quoting 471_us_84 to reflect the foregoing decision will be entered for respondent