- 3 -
reflecting such an intent", we should conclude that, without such
technical amendment, the language in the body of the General
Explanation ought not to be taken into account. We were of the
view, however, that petitioner's argument was far too speculative
to merit consideration and consequently saw no need to refer to
the language in the body of the General Explanation or the
footnote because other materials which we discussed in our prior
opinion furnished more than an adequate foundation for our
conclusion.
In its motion for reconsideration, petitioner sets forth its
new discovery, namely that Congress in enacting the Technical and
Miscellaneous Revenue Act of 1988 (TAMRA 1988), Pub. L. 100-647,
sec. 1013(d), 102 Stat. 3342, 3548, included the following
addition as section 1314(h) of the Tax Reform Act of 1986:
(h) Arbitrage Restriction on Investments in
Investment-Type Property.--In the case of a bond issued
before August 16, 1986 (September 1, 1986 in the case
of a bond described in section 1312(c)(2)), section
103(c) of the 1954 Code shall be applied by treating
the reference to securities in paragraph (2) thereof as
including a reference to investment-type property but
only for purposes of determining whether any bond
issued after October 16, 1987, to advance refund such
bond (or a bond which is part of a series of refundings
of such bond) is an arbitrage bond (within the meaning
of section 148(a) of the 1986 Code).
Petitioner asserts that this provision requires us to
determine the tax-exempt status of the bond issue involved herein
under the 1954 Code and not the 1986 Code, which came into being
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011