- 51 -
historical development increases the likelihood that the Congress
was actually aware that “active conduct of a trade or business”
figured in both the WHTC provisions and in section 936.
In light of the foregoing, we reject respondent’s contention
that WHTC cases “are not applicable to a section 936 issue”, and
we conclude that respondent’s citation of Norfolk S. Corp. v.
Commissioner, supra, does not provide any support for
respondent’s contention. On the contrary, we regard WHTC
opinions as authority with respect to the meaning of identical
language in section 936.
ii. Expressio Unius * * *
Respondent contends as follows:
“There is a venerable rule of statutory construction
which states: expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the
expression of one thing implies the exclusion of another
thing).” Section 936(a)(2)(B) does not refer to attribution
of activities, such as contract manufacturing; however,
section 936(h)(5)(B)(iii)(II) does refer to “contract
manufacturing.” “Where Congress includes particular
language in one section of a statute but omits it in another
section of the same [statute], it is generally presumed that
Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion or exclusion.”
In choosing the words “such domestic corporation” as
the statutory standard in section 936(a)(2)(B), without
reference to attribution of another’s activities, such as
the activities of a contract manufacturer, Congress limited
consideration exclusively to the domestic corporation’s
conduct in the possession. In other words, the activities
of others cannot be attributed to the domestic corporation
for purposes of section 936(a)(2)(B). [Citations omitted.]
In effect, the “expressio unius” rule to which respondent
draws our attention is merely the obverse of what we have
Page: Previous 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011