Edward A. Robinson III and Diana R. Robinson - Page 58




                                       - 32 -                                         
          definition.  We interpreted the conference committee sentence as            
          follows (106 T.C. at 44-45):                                                
                    In short, we think that when the conference committee             
               used the phrase “tax deficiencies”, it was referring to                
               amounts due by way of income, estate, and gift taxes.  In              
               this context, the word “generally” in the conference                   
               committee report takes on a significant meaning.  It signals           
               that not all interest relating to income tax, etc.,                    
               deficiencies are included in “personal interest”.  The                 
               logical explanation for what is excluded by “generally” is             
               such interest that constitutes an ordinary and necessary               
               business expense and is therefore “allocable to an                     
               indebtedness of a trade or business” within the meaning of             
               the exception clause of section 163(h)(2)(A).  To adopt                
               respondent’s position would require us to substitute the               
               word “always” for “generally” and to expand the                        
               interpretation of the word “deficiencies” beyond its                   
               accepted meaning to encompass taxes other than income, etc.,           
               taxes in order to account for the use of the word                      
               “generally”.  By way of contrast, our interpretation accepts           
               the established meaning of “deficiencies” and gives effect             
               to “generally” without modification.                                   
               We then discussed the 1986 Blue Book’s status and concluded            
          as follows (106 T.C. at 45-46):                                             
               Where there is no corroboration in the actual legislative              
               history, we shall not hesitate to disregard the General                
               Explanation as far as congressional intent is concerned.7              
               See Estate of Wallace v. Commissioner, 965 F.2d 1038, 1050-            
               1051 n.15 (11th Cir. 1992), affg. 95 T.C. 525 (1990);                  
               Zinniel v. Commissioner, 89 T.C. 357, 367 (1987), affd. 883            
               F.2d 1350 (7th Cir. 1989);8 see also Livingston, supra at 93           
               (“The Blue Book is on especially weak ground when it adopts            
               anti-taxpayer positions not taken in the committee                     
               reports.”). Given the clear thrust of the conference                   
               committee report, the General Explanation is without                   
               foundation and must fall by the wayside.  To conclude other-           
               wise would elevate it to a status and accord it a deference            
               to which it is simply not entitled.                                    
               __________________                                                     
               7 In this connection, we also note that the Tax Reform Act             
               of 1986, Pub. L. 99-514, 100 Stat. 2085, was enacted on Oct.           
               22, 1986, during the 99th Congress, whereas the General                





Page:  Previous  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  38  39  40  41  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011