- 31 -
As legislative regulations are essentially substantive rules
of law, the rules of interpretation applicable to statutes are
appropriate tools of analysis. KCMC, Inc. v. FCC, 600 F.2d 546,
549 (5th Cir. 1979); Intel Corp. & Consol. Subs. v. Commissioner,
100 T.C. 616, 630 (1993), affd. 67 F.3d 1445 (9th Cir. 1995);
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Commissioner, 101 T.C. 78, 97 (1993),
affd. without published opinion ___F.3d___ (10th Cir., Nov. 28,
1995). Statutes are to be construed so as to give effect to
their plain and ordinary meaning unless to do so would produce an
absurd result. Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U.S. 504,
509 (1989); United States v. NEC Corp., 931 F.2d 1493, 1498 (11th
Cir. 1991); Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Weitz, 913 F.2d 1544,
1548 (11th Cir. 1990); Exxon Corp. v. Commissioner, 102 T.C. 721
(1994).
Where a statute is clear on its face, we require unequivocal
evidence of legislative purpose before construing the statute so
as to override the plain meaning of the words used therein.
Halpern v. Commissioner, 96 T.C. 895 (1991). All parts of a
statute must be read together, and each part should be given its
full effect. D. Ginsberg & Sons, Inc. v. Popkin, 285 U.S. 204,
208 (1932); Estate of Dupree v. United States, 391 F.2d 753, 757
(5th Cir. 1968); McNutt-Boyce Co. v. Commissioner, 38 T.C. 462,
469 (1962), affd. per curiam 324 F.2d 957 (5th Cir. 1963).
Unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise, when we find
the terms of a statute unambiguous, judicial inquiry is complete.
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011