- 66 -
341. 66 T.C. at 1020-1021. We concluded as follows, id. at
1021:
Therefore we conclude that “manufacturing” and
“production” have no uniform generalized meaning in the
Code and we must look to the purposes and legislative
history of section 48 for their specific meaning here.
To the same effect, see Garnac Grain Co. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.
7, 30-31 (1990).
As best we can tell, we are most likely to give the same term
different meanings in different places (i.e., to conclude that the
drafter committed a “utraquistic subterfuge”, whether intentionally
or by mistake) if the term is short (e.g., the one-word terms
“manufacturing” and “production”) and is used in common (i.e.,
nonlegal) speech with a variety of meanings. In any event, it is
clear that, as to “manufactured” and “produced”, we must focus on
the sections directly before us, and we are not likely to draw much
assistance from the interpretation of those words as they appear in
other statutes. However, see discussion infra (a. Legislative
History--Sec. 936(h)), where a portion of the 1982 Act explanation
by the conference committee states as follows:
In general, the figures to be used for these calculations [the
first prong tests] will be those used by the island affiliate
and its affiliates in their required inventory calculations.
[H. Conf. Rept. 97-760, 506, 1982-2 C.B. 600, 619.]
On this issue, also, respondent makes the “expressio unius”
contention that the reference to “contract manufacturing” in
section 936(h)(5)(B)(iii)(II), and the treatment of that subject
in section 1.936-5(c), Q&A-3, Income Tax Regs., mean that
Page: Previous 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011