- 11 -
previously amended the statute to provide for the $100 cash
payment exception under section 3121(b)(20)(A) and for no other
exception.
Respondent argues petitioner was self-employed under section
3121(b)(20) because he was compensated for his services
exclusively through a share of the proceeds from the sale of the
catch of fish, with the amount of compensation depending on the
amount of the catch for each voyage, according to respondent’s
interpretation of section 3121(b)(20) and the regulation in
accordance with the congressional intent underlying section
3121(b)(20). Respondent argues the Secretary did not revoke Rev.
Rul. 77-102, supra, and that the revenue ruling is consistent
with section 3121(b)(20) and the regulation. Respondent argues
that the quoted canon of statutory construction does not apply;
the issue of statutory construction presented is not whether to
create another exception analogous to the $100 cash payment
exception created by section 3121(b)(20)(A), but to construe the
original text of section 3121(b)(20) to determine whether
subtraction of operating expenses from the proceeds of the catch
prevents an individual’s share of the proceeds from depending on
the amount of the catch.
Petitioners make two other arguments, which respondent
disputes, that we briefly address at the end of this Opinion.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011