- 36 -
B. Exceptions to the Plain Language Doctrine Are Not
Applicable
There are two exceptions to the plain language doctrine. We
need not adhere to a literal application of a statute if such
language produces an outcome that is ‘demonstrably at odds’ with
clearly expressed congressional intent to the contrary, United
States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. at 241 (1989) (quoting
Griffin v. Oceanic Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 571 (1982));
Peaden v. Commissioner, 113 T.C. 116, 122 (1999), or results in
an outcome so absurd “as to shock the general moral or common
sense”, Crooks v. Harrelson, 282 U.S. 55, 60 (1930); Tele-
Communications, Inc. v. Commissioner, 95 T.C. 495 (1990). A
conclusion that section 931 is inapplicable without regulations
neither conflicts with clearly expressed congressional intent nor
results in an absurd outcome. To the contrary, the legislative
history and the implementing agreement both support the plain
language of the statute which provides that section 931 is
inapplicable in the absence of regulations.
1. Legislative History
The legislative history indicates that Congress gave only
the Secretary the authority to prescribe the applicable rules.
Congress was equally concerned about American Samoa’s authority
to implement its own tax system and the minimization of potential
abuse. The Senate Committee on Finance stated:
Page: Previous 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011