15
compliance expenses at issue, we conclude that Congress did not
intend those expenses to qualify as specified liability losses.
3. Categories of Property Eligible for a 10-Year Carryback
Section 172(f) provides a 10-year carryback for product
liability expenses, tort losses, and nuclear power plant
decommissioning costs, among other specified liability losses.
We think Congress intended the 10-year carryback for liability
losses under section 172(f)(1)(B) to apply to a relatively narrow
class of liabilities similar to the others identified by the
statute. Under the ejusdem generis rule of statutory
construction, general words that follow the enumeration of
specific classes are construed as applying only to things of the
same general class as those enumerated. Kansas City S. Ry. Co.
v. McNamara, 817 F.2d 368, 372 (5th Cir. 1987); Coleman v.
Commissioner, 76 T.C. 580, 588 (1981) (applying the rule of
ejusdem generis to interpret “other casualty”); Estate of Short
v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 184, 193 (1977). We think that the
costs at issue here are routine costs and are not of the same
general type as those other categories.
Petitioners argue that according to the plain language of
section 172(f)(1)(B), petitioners’ costs of compliance with the
1934 Act, ERISA, and the Internal Revenue Code are specified
liability losses. We disagree. There is nothing in the statute
that plainly, or at all, for that matter, establishes that
petitioners may carry their compliance costs back for 10 years.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011