with that opinion. Respondent has filed responses thereto as
ordered by the Court.
The substance of petitioner's motion for reconsideration is
our alleged failure to take into account certain legislative
history which, according to petitioner, should cause us to reach
the opposite conclusion from that articulated in our prior
opinion. In its reply brief submitted prior to the issuance of
that opinion, petitioner, for the first time, argued that its
proposed issue was entitled to the benefit of the pre-1986 rules,
relying on material in the General Explanation of the Tax Reform
Act of 1986 prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation (the General Explanation) in connection with the
enactment of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100
Stat. 2085. The General Explanation stated with respect to new
provisions dealing with arbitrage bonds:
Congress intended this provision to prohibit issuance
of refunding bonds (as well as new issues) of pension
arbitrage bonds after September 25, 1985, regardless of
whether the proceeds of the refunded bonds used to
acquire the annuities may have been treated as spent
proceeds under prior law * * * [Staff of the Joint
Comm. on Taxation, General Explanation of the Tax
Reform Act of 1986, at 1202 (J. Comm. Print 1987);
emphasis added.]
To this statement, the following footnote was added:
A technical amendment may be necessary for the statute
to reflect this intent. [Id. at 1202 n.155; emphasis
added.]
In its reply brief, petitioner went on to state that,
because "no subsequent technical amendment * * * was ever enacted
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011