- 85 -
furniture in question, however, was furniture described as “consumer
durable property” (described in Rev. Proc. 95-38, 1995-2 C.B. 397,
398) subject to rent-to-own contracts entered into with individuals.
The furniture was generally used in an individual’s home. That
furniture, thus, does not fall within class 00.11, which pertains to
“Office Furniture, Fixtures, and Equipment”.
Petitioner’s argument that legislative and administrative
history support its position is basically an argument that policy
goals such as simplification and controversy avoidance would be
served by holding that the activity category includes all
depreciable property used in the named activities. Whether or not
that may be true, but it is not the pattern of the classification
system, which, in specific instances, excludes asset category items
from the activity category. See, e.g., Rev. Proc. 87-56, classes
35.0, 37.11, 80.0. Rev. Proc. 87-56 also excludes from the asset
category items described in the activity category, see, e.g.,
classes 00.12, 00.3, 00.4. We do not discern the absolute position
that petitioner advocates in the history it has cited to us.
Petitioner’s argument that the particular should prevail over
the general is an argument based on common sense and general rules
of construction. See, e.g., Wood v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 364, 371
(1990) (“when Congress has dealt with a particular classification
with specific language, the classification is removed from the
application of general language”), revd. 955 F.2d 908 (4th Cir.
1992). Petitioner, however, has not persuaded us that, in this
case, class 57.0 is the specific and class 00.11 is the general.
Page: Previous 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011