- 14 -
canon of construction should be applied.12 See Estate of
Schwartz v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 943 (1984) (where
administrative regulations are ambiguous the rules of statutory
construction will apply); see also 1A Sands, Statutes and
Statutory Construction, sec. 31.06 (1872). In any case, we need
only resort to one cardinal canon here as the regulation clearly
and unambiguously provides "any expenses" incurred by an employer
in connection with a plan are deductible under section 162 as
long as they are ordinary and necessary and are "not provided
for" by contributions under the plan. We presume that the
Treasury, the drafter of the regulation, said what it means and
means what it said. See Connecticut Natl. Bank v. Germain, 503
U.S. 249 (1992) (for a discussion of the cardinal canon). We do
not read the phrase "such as trustee's and actuary's fees" as
restricting the breadth of "any expenses" but rather as being
illustrative in nature.13
Having decided petitioner may deduct the litigation costs
allocable to the plan, we decide which portion is so allocable.
Petitioner paid $97,274 in litigation costs in connection with a
case involving four separate claimants; to wit, Sklar,
12For example, respondent does not argue the doctrine of
ejusdem generis to support his position that only expenses of the
same type as "trustee's and actuary's fees" may be deducted.
13The term "such as" is defined as "for example". See
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary 1157 (1984).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011