CCA 200227011: Counsel identifies years for Joint Committee report

Plain-English summary

Counsel was asked which years to include in a report to the Joint Committee on Taxation in a refund case. The underlying issue was whether a taxpayer qualified for the section 892 income tax exemption and refunds of withholding on U.S. investment income. Based on the supplied refund and bond summary, counsel advised excluding three of the redacted years while including two others under the aggregation rules. For those two years, the report should state only the additional refund amounts being claimed. The public letter redacts the years and dollar amounts.

Ruling snapshot

• Question: Which years and claimed amounts belong in the Joint Committee report?
• Outcome: Advice to include two additional years and exclude three others, as identified in the redacted letter
• Key authorities: IRC §§ 6405, 892, 1441, 1442

Full text (IRS public release)

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
I N T E R N AL R E V E N U E S E R V I C E WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224

OFFICE OF
CHIEF COUNSEL
March 20, 2002

Number: 200227011
CC:PA:APJP:B01
Release Date: 7/5/2002
POSTF-166156-01
UIL: 6405.01-00

MEMORANDUM FOR:Special Trial Attorney CC:LM:MCT:SLWAS FROM: Assistant Chief Counsel, APJP

SUBJECT: Joint Committee Report -

This responds to your request for advice as to which years are required to be included in the report to the Joint Committee in the subject case. As we understand the facts, the sole issue for each of the years under examination ( through ) is whether the taxpayer was exempt from income tax under section 892 and therefore entitled to refunds of all section 1441/1442 withholding from its U.S.-source investment income.

It was our previous determination that a report should be submitted for the and years that prompted your request for clarification as to which other years and amounts, if any, were also required to be included. Based on the facts and refund/bond
summary you provided, we have concluded that neither the , nor year
need be reported. As to the and years, while we recognize that an
argument can be made for omitting them, we read the aggregation rules as requiring their inclusion. Accordingly, based on the particulars of this and related cases, we believe it appropriate to include and , reporting only the additional amounts
now being claimed, $ and $ respectively.

Should you have any further questions, please contact

CURT G. WILSON by:
JAMES C. GIBBONS
Chief, APJP Branch 1
Procedure and Administration