- 35 -
Fourthly, even if we were to agree that the use of
“deficiencies” in the conference committee sentence is
significant, the only significance stated in Redlark v.
Commissioner, 106 T.C. at 44, is that it refers to “amounts due
by way of income, estate, and gift taxes.”15 As we noted supra
in Secondly and Thirdly, the exclusion provided by subparagraph
(E) of section 163(h)(2) is an exclusion of interest on estate
tax in certain circumstances. This is a far simpler explanation
of the conference committee sentence than the labored explanation
in Redlark; it provides consistency of meaning among the various
documents in the history of the legislation; and it refutes the
conclusion in Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. at 46, that the
conference committee sentence has a “clear thrust” that requires
us to reject the TRA 1986 Blue Book and to invalidate Treasury
Regulations. Of course, if a Blue Book were to conflict with
enacted language or controlling legislative history, then the
statutory language or the controlling legislative history would
prevail. In our view, the conference committee report is not
clear regarding which category of interest was intended to be
excepted from “personal interest”; i.e., which category made it
15 Beginning with the Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-
172, 83 Stat. 487, the Congress began to bring a series of
regulatory excise taxes into the definition of “deficiency” in
sec. 6211. At the time TRA 1986 was enacted, the definition
included the taxes imposed by chs. 41 through 45, in addition to
the income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtits. A and B.
Page: Previous 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011