- 21 -
LARO, J., concurring: I agree with the majority opinion.
I write separately to emphasize two points underlying that
opinion.
1. The Term “Underlying Tax Liability” Is Unambiguous
The relevant term, “underlying tax liability”, is clear and
unambiguous and is read easily to mean the tax liability
underlying the proposed levy. The beginning and end of our
inquiry, therefore, must be the statutory text, and we must apply
the plain meaning of that text. TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 185
n.29 (1978); United States v. Am. Trucking Associations, 310 U.S.
534, 543 (1940). Only when text is “inescapably ambiguous” may
we resort to the legislative history to discern its meaning.
Garcia v. United States, 469 U.S. 70, 76 n.3 (1984). The meaning
of the relevant term is not inescapably ambiguous. Whereas
respondent essentially reads the relevant term to mean
“underlying tax deficiency”, Congress obviously knew how to use
the word “deficiency” and presumably would have used that word in
the relevant term had it intended the reading advocated by
respondent.
2. Legislative History Supports the Majority Opinion
Even if we were permitted to consult the legislative history
of section 6330(c)(2) to discern the meaning of the relevant
term, the legislative history supports interpreting the term in
accordance with its plain meaning. The history to section 6330,
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011