James E. Anderson and Cheryl J. Latos - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
          Congress has devoted to the regulation during subsequent                    
          reenactments of the statute.  Id.                                           
               The language of the statute and the regulation is far from             
          clear.  The dictionary definition of “depend” encompasses “to               
          require something as a necessary condition” with the example                
          “prices depend on supply and demand”.  Webster’s Third New                  
          International Dictionary 604 (1974).  In this example, “prices”             
          depend on two factors, “supply” and “demand”, and so cannot                 
          depend “solely” on either of them.  Section 3121(b)(20) does not            
          use the word “solely”, which implies that the amount of the catch           
          is a necessary, but not exclusive, factor upon which the proceeds           
          must depend.  The use of “solely” in section 31.3121(b)(20)-1,              
          Employment Tax Regs., suggests that proceeds must depend only on            
          the amount of the catch “to the exclusion of alternate or                   
          competing” factors such as operating expenses.  The definition of           
          “proceeds” encompasses proceeds after subtraction of operating              
          expenses.  See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 1807            
          (1974); Black’s Law Dictionary 1242 (8th ed. 2004).                         
               Logically speaking, uncritically applying the dictionary               
          definitions of these terms to the statute and the regulation                
          would lead to contradictory results.  Because the statute is                
          ambiguous, we may use legislative history, see Patterson v.                 
          Shumate, supra at 761; Fincher v. Commissioner, supra at 133-134,           
          to find the interpretation that can most fairly be said to be               

Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011