- 28 -
We agree with the analysis of the Court of Federal Claims in
Flores. We shall not engage in a detailed discussion of that
analysis. Rather, we confine ourselves to a summary of our
conclusions as to respondent’s arguments with some augmentation of
the analysis of the Court of Federal Claims.
Specifically at issue in this case, as well as in Flores, is
whether a tax liability “remaining unpaid” as of the date of
enactment of section 6015 (i.e., July 22, 1998), refers to (1) the
entire amount of the tax liability for the year if any portion
thereof has not been collected by July 22, 1998, or (2) only that
portion of the tax liability that has not been collected by July
22, 1998.
Respondent asserts that Flores v. United States, supra, was
wrongly decided because its holding renders the word “remaining”
excessive, thereby violating “‘a cardinal principle of statutory
construction’ that ‘a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so
construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or
word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant’.” TRW, Inc. v
Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (quoting Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S.
167 (2001)). Respondent asserts that the use of the word
“remaining” preceding “unpaid” implies that part [or all] of the
liability has not been paid and remains to be paid. This
implication merely reflects that the liability in question has not
been paid in full. In this regard, we have held that a taxpayer is
Page: Previous 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011