- 10 -
(iv) no amount received for
services provided by an individual while
the individual is an inmate at a penal
institution shall be taken into account,
* * *
Respondent contends that section 32(c)(2)(B)(iv) precludes
petitioner from qualifying for the earned income credit insofar
as all of the wages that petitioner earned during 1999 constitute
amounts that petitioner received for services that he provided to
TEK while he was an inmate at a penal institution. Petitioner
counters that respondent’s construction of section
32(c)(2)(B)(iv) is incorrect on the ground that a prisoner’s
earnings for services provided to a private business are not
excluded from the computation of the earned income credit.
In construing a statute, courts generally seek the plain and
literal meaning of its language. See United States v. Locke, 471
U.S. 84, 93, 95-96 (1985); United States v. American Trucking
Associations, Inc., 310 U.S. 534, 543 (1940). For that purpose,
courts generally assume that Congress uses common words in their
popular meaning. See Commissioner v. Groetzinger, 480 U.S. 23,
28 (1987), affg. 771 F.2d 269 (7th Cir. 1985).
Based upon the plain language of section 32(c)(2)(B)(iv), we
conclude that the wages that petitioner earned during 1999 are
not taken into account in computing the earned income credit.
Petitioner was an inmate at a penal institution throughout the
taxable year 1999, and all wages for services provided by inmates
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011