- 81 -
THORNTON, J., concurring: I am concerned that the majority
opinion may contribute to confusion over the interpretive weight
this Court will accord nonauthoritative congressional staff
materials.
In its analysis, the majority opinion relies heavily on
certain language appearing in the Joint Committee on Taxation
General Explanation of the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (the Blue
Book). In Redlark v. Commissioner, 106 T.C. 31, 45-46 (1996),
revd. and remanded 141 F.3d 936 (9th Cir. 1998), this Court
pointedly disregarded this same Blue Book language, stating:
Where there is no corroboration in the actual
legislative history, we shall not hesitate to disregard
the General Explanation [of the Blue Book] as far as
congressional intent is concerned. * * * Given the
clear thrust of the conference committee report, the
General Explanation [of the Blue Book] is without
foundation and must fall by the wayside. To conclude
otherwise would elevate it to a status and accord it a
deference to which it simply is not entitled.
Other opinions of this Court echo the notion that we require some
direct corroboration of congressional intentions before we defer
to Blue Book expressions thereof. See Allen v. Commissioner, 118
T.C. 1, 15 (2002) (“Although the Staff of the Joint Committee’s
explanation of a tax statute may be entitled to respect as a
document that is prepared in connection with the legislative
process by individuals who are intimately involved in that
process, we shall not hesitate to disregard the expressions set
forth therein where, as here, those expressions are barren of
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011