Union Carbide Foreign Sales Corporation, et al. - Page 11




                                        - 11 -                                         
          modified the word “property”.  Petitioner contends that the                  
          placement of the phrase “subject to a lease” shows that it                   
          modifies the word “acquired” which, grammatically, should mean               
          that the property remains subject to a lease in the hands of the             
          acquiring party.                                                             
               Respondent agrees that the phrase “subject to a lease”                  
          modifies the term “acquired”, but contends that “It does so * * *            
          as part of the past participial phrase ‘acquired subject to a                
          lease’, which, used in conjunction with the verb ‘is’, modifies              
          and governs ‘property’”.  Respondent contends that such usage                
          constitutes a past participial phrase and that “acquired subject             
          to a lease” merely denotes the gaining of possession.  Respondent            
          also points out that the phrase has been placed in the past tense            
          by the use of the word “acquired” and is without continuing or               
          future tense.  Finally, respondent references 1 U.S.C. sec. 1                
          (1994), which provides that “words used in the present tense                 
          include the future as well as the present”.  From this statement,            
          respondent reasons that, conversely, words stated in the past                
          tense (such as “acquired”) do not include the future.  Thus,                 
          respondent concludes that Congress intended to limit the subject             
          phrase to the point of the acquisition of the asset.                         
               Although we appreciate the parties’ arguments concerning                
          grammar, Congress’ intent should not be decided solely by                    
          reference to finite nuances to be found in the rules of grammar.             






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011