- 11 -
witnesses at trial gave any testimony that the ElderPlace program
"placed" individuals in foster homes.
Petitioners further contend that the phrase "placed by" in
section 131(b)(2) has no definition in the Internal Revenue Code
or regulations, no legal definition in case law, and no
definition in Oregon State statutes, administrative rules, or
local county rules or ordinances. The words "place" or
"placement" have, petitioners allege, no "customary meaning to
those who are closely involved in adult foster care."
Without a working definition of the word, petitioners
nonetheless argue that the elderly enrollees of the ElderPlace
program were "placed" in their care, not by ElderPlace, but by
the "actions" of a government agency, albeit indirectly.
Petitioners urge us to examine the legislative history of section
131 to confirm their view.
Respondent replies that to be a "qualified foster
individual", the plain language of section 131(b)(2) requires
that individuals who have attained the age of 19 must be "placed
by" an agency of a State or political subdivision thereof. Since
ElderPlace, and not an agency of the State or political
subdivision thereof, "placed", in the common usage of the term,
its enrollees with petitioners, respondent maintains that the
requirements of section 131(b)(2) were not met in petitioners'
case.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011