- 83 -
Second, to the extent the majority opinion means to
repudiate the views of this Court as expressed in Redlark and
other opinions, requiring some direct corroboration of Blue Book
expressions of congressional intentions, it raises significant
questions about the standard this Court now intends to apply in
assessing the interpretive weight to accord materials like the
Blue Book that technically are not part of the legislative
history. The only express clue provided by the majority opinion
appears in its statement that “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.” Majority op. p. 35. This statement might be
construed as suggesting that, even in the absence of direct
corroboration in the statute or other controlling legislative
materials, a Blue Book explanation will be considered as
controlling unless it actually conflicts with these materials.
Any such suggestion is troublesome. As has been observed
elsewhere, there should be no “one generic standard for assessing
the Blue Book’s authority”; rather, the “Blue Book’s
interpretative weight depends, in large measure, on the role it
is performing.” Livingston, “What’s Blue and White and Not Quite
as Good as a Committee Report: General Explanations and the Role
of ‘Subsequent’ Tax Legislative History”, 11 Am. J. Tax Poly. 91,
105, 122 (1994). Where, as here, a Blue Book explanation does
Page: Previous 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011