- 29 -
language was “in carrying on any trade or business” (sec.
23(a)(1)(A), I.R.C. 1939) and “attributable to” the taxpayer’s
trade or business (secs. 22(n)(1) and 122(d)(5), I.R.C. 1939).
In Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. at 34, 37, we did not
deal with the fact that both the enacted TRA 1986 language (“in
connection with”) and the enacted TAMRA 1988 language (“properly
allocable to”) were different from the “in carrying on” and
“attributable to” language interpreted in the pre-TRA 1986
opinions.
Ordinarily, we would expect that a change in statutory
language indicates a change in meaning. Russello v. United
States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983); cf. Elect. Arts, Inc. v.
Commissioner, 118 T.C. 226, 242-243 (2002), and cases there
cited.10
10 This is the general rule not only because of the
authority of the cited opinions, but also because this is the way
legislative drafters are instructed to draft statutes. See,
e.g., Office of the Legislative Counsel U.S. House of
Representatives, House Legislative Counsel’s Manual on Drafting
Style, 3 (1995), as follows:
(4) Use same word over and over.--If you have
found the right word, don’t be afraid to use it again
and again. In other words, don’t show your pedantry by
an ostentatious parade of synonyms. Your English
teacher may be disappointed, but the courts and others
who are straining to find your meaning will bless you.
(5) Avoid utraquistic subterfuges.--Do not use the
same word in 2 different ways in the same draft (unless
(continued...)
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011