- 40 -
a general rule, an intention to exclude any further exceptions
may be inferred. See Catterall v. Commissioner, 68 T.C. 413, 421
(1977), affd. sub nom. Vorbleski v. Commissioner, 589 F.2d 123
(3d Cir. 1978); see also Black’s Law Dictionary 581 (6th Ed.
1990) (“if [sic] statute specifies one exception to a general
rule or assumes to specify the effects of a certain provision,
other exceptions or effects are excluded”). Petitioners argue
that allowing for subtraction of operating expenses would
constitute an exception to section 3121(b)(20) that Congress
specifically precluded by enacting the $100 cash payment
exception of section 3121(b)(20)(A).
The canon “expressio unius est exclusio alterius” does not
apply to every statutory listing or grouping; the canon applies
only when the statute identifies “a series of two or more terms
or things that should be understood to go hand in hand,” thus
raising the inference that a similar unlisted term was
deliberately excluded. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Echazabal, 536
U.S. 73, 81 (2002); United States v. City of New York, 359 F.3d
83, 98 (2d Cir. 2004). The canon can never override clear and
contrary evidences of congressional intent. Neuberger v.
Commissioner, 311 U.S. 83, 88 (1940).
In enacting section 3121(b)(20)(A), Congress was focused on
“additional cash remuneration” that is “traditional in the
industry” and is “contingent on a minimum catch” but does not
Page: Previous 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011