- 12 -
the nationwide weighted average was less than 2 years, they could
be excepted from the capitalization requirement of section 263A.
In other words, Congress has provided for a standard that is not
static and could change from year to year.
Next, we consider respondent’s argument that Congress
intended that the section 263A capitalization requirement apply
to citrus farmers. We first consider the statute to discern
congressional intent. See United States v. American Trucking
Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 542-543 (1940); Hospital Corp.
of Am. v. Commissioner, 107 T.C. 116, 128 (1996). If the
language of the statute is clear, we need look no further in
deciding its meaning. See Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 482
(1990). If the statute is silent or ambiguous, the legislative
history may reveal congressional intent. See Burlington No. R.R.
v. Oklahoma Tax Commn., 481 U.S. 454, 461 (1987); United States
v. American Trucking Associations, Inc., supra at 543-544;
Hospital Corp. of Am. v. Commissioner, supra at 129.
Respondent contends that Congress’ intent is demonstrated by
the language of section 263A(d)(3)(C). That section prohibits
farmers from electing out of the section 263A capitalization
6(...continued)
lists of preproductive periods for various plants. H. Rept. 99-
426, at 628 (1985), 1986-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) 1, 628 & n.45. The
legislative history, however, is silent on the effect, if any, of
the Secretary’s failure to so publish the preproductive periods
as expected, the very question we consider.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011