- 22 -
the word "generally". By way of contrast, our interpretation
accepts the established meaning of "deficiencies" and gives
effect to "generally" without modification. Nor do we think our
view is negated by the rationale advanced by both respondent and
the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that, in the case of
an individual, income tax, etc., the payment of deficiencies and
therefore of the interest thereon is always a "personal
obligation". That is equally true of the obligation to pay
interest on sales and excise taxes imposed upon a business
conducted as a sole proprietorship--interest that is excluded by
regulation. Sec. 1.163-9T(b)(2)(iii)(A), Temporary Income Tax
Regs.
Nor can respondent's position be salvaged by the Joint
Committee Staff Explanation. Such a document is not part of the
legislative history although it is entitled to respect. E.g.,
Condor International, Inc. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 203, 227
(1992); see also Estate of Hutchinson v. Commissioner, 765 F.2d
665, 669-670 (7th Cir. 1985), affg. T.C. Memo. 1984-55;
Livingston, "What's Blue and White and Not Quite as Good as a
Committee Report: General Explanations and the Role of
'Subsequent' Tax Legislative History," 11 Amer. J. Tax Policy 91
(1994). Where there is no corroboration in the actual
legislative history, we shall not hesitate to disregard the
General Explanation as far as congressional intent is concerned.7
In this connection, we also note that the Tax Reform Act of
1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, was enacted on Oct. 22,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011