- 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 inmatesPage: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011