- 41 -
necessarily depend on the amount of the catch. See sec.
3121(b)(20(A) (emphasis added); SBJPA sec. 1116, 110 Stat. 1452,
1762, 1996-3 C.B. 1, 931; S. Rept. 104-281, at 10 (1996).
Congress added section 3121(b)(20)(A) to conform to the reality
of longstanding fishing industry practices that allowed pers to
be paid to the mate, the cook, and the engineer. See S. Rept.
104-281, supra at 10 (stating that the $100 exception would
recognize longstanding industry practice).
The issue of statutory interpretation presented is not
whether to create another exception analogous to section
3121(b)(20)(A), but to interpret 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.
The operating expenses are fixed expenses subtracted from
the proceeds of the catch, whereas the $100 payment exception
applies to additional remuneration. The $100 cash payment
exception and the subtraction of operating expenses are so
unrelated and dissimilar that there is no inference or
implication that Congress intended, by injecting the $100 payment
exception for pers under section 3121(b)(20)(A), to exclude the
reduction of proceeds by operating expenses that was embedded in
the statute as originally enacted. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc., v.
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