- 24 - recipient's income. See sec. 88 (nuclear decommissioning costs are "includible" in gross income). Judge Ruwe's dissent uses the word "included" in section 83(a) to construe the word "included" in section 83(h). Although the choice of "included" or "includible" in section 83(a) would not affect our reading of that subsection, Judge Ruwe's dissent's substitution of "includible" for "included" in section 83(h) would dramatically change the meaning of that subsection. From the fact that Congress might have accomplished its purpose in section 83(a) equally well by saying "includible" instead of "included", Judge Ruwe reasons that Congress meant "includible" in section 83(h) where it used "included". Judge Ruwe's dissent pp.39-40. The dissent in essence relies on the maxim of statutory construction that if Congress uses the same term in two places in the statute, we should give it the same meaning. Maxims of construction are useful interpretative tools but are not dispositive. The dissent overlooks the different purpose and context of sections 83(a) and (h). The same word or phrase appearing in different places in the internal revenue laws may have different meanings depending on the context and legislative purpose involved. See Helvering v. Stockholms Enskilda Bank, 293 U.S. 84, 86-88 (1934); Helvering v. Morgan's Inc., 293 U.S. 121, 128 (1934). The context of section 83(a), an income inclusion provision, is different than section 83(h), a deductionPage: Previous 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011