- 34 -
companies from owning banks.12 Petitioner has offered no policy
reason why Congress would permit deposits (particularly deposits
for an indefinite period) with a related bank but prohibit
investments in a related corporation. In response to
petitioner's argument that the phrase "deposits with persons
carrying on the banking business" has a plain meaning (an
argument we reject), we note that, when the adherence to the
"plain meaning" of a statute produces an unreasonable result
"plainly at variance with the policy of the legislation as a
whole", it is proper to follow that purpose, rather than the
literal words. United States v. Am. Trucking Associations, Inc.,
310 U.S. 534, 543-544 (1940)(internal quotation omitted); see
also United States v. Ron Pair Enter., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989).
Further, "[w]e may then look to the reason of the enactment and
inquire into its antecedent history and give it effect in
accordance with its decision and purpose, sacrificing, if
necessary, the literal meaning in order that the purpose may not
fail.” U.S. Padding Corp. v. Commissioner, 88 T.C. 177, 184
(1987), affd. 865 F.2d 750 (6th Cir. 1989). We believe that a
related party prohibition is implicit in the exception for
section 956 deposits. Such a prohibition is necessary to give
12 Undoubtedly, Congress believed that it had foreclosed that
possibility in 1970 when it enacted BHCA 1970 Amendments. See
supra note 11. By 1987, nonbank companies had found a loophole
(the nonbank loophole) in BHCA, which Congress enacted CEBA to
close. See supra note 3. Commercial firms, however, did not
begin to exploit the nonbank loophole until the early 1980s.
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011