- 20 -
of the words of the statute as well as their context, the
purposes of the law, and the circumstances under which the words
were employed. See Deal v. United States, 508 U.S. 129, 132
(1993); Shell Oil Co. v. Iowa Dept. of Revenue, 488 U.S. 19
(1988); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 17 F.3d 965, 967 (7th
Cir. 1994), affg. 98 T.C. 518 (1992). Furthermore, we must view
the statute in context as a whole and with a view to its place in
the overall statutory scheme. King v. St. Vincent's Hosp., 502
U.S. 215, 221 (1991); Stanford v. Commissioner, 297 F.2d 298, 308
(9th Cir. 1961), affg. 34 T.C. 1150 (1960); Norfolk S. Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra at 41.
Section 448(d)(7)(C)(ii) provides that, for purposes of
determining the period for taking into account a section 481(a)
adjustment relating to a change in method of accounting required
under section 448(a), the spread period "in the case of a
hospital, shall be 10 years." Petitioners' analysis of the
statutory language focuses primarily on the phrase "shall be 10
years." Their analysis basically ignores the other words in the
statute and the purposes of the statutory provision as a whole.
On brief, neither party addresses the significance of
Congress' choice of the term "a hospital" in section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) to the precise question involved in the instant
opinion. Indeed, petitioners generally paraphrase section
448(d)(7)(C)(ii) to read: "the period for taking into account
the adjustment under section 481 for hospitals shall be 10
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011