- 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