- 10 -
216, references in sections 67(b) and 911(c)(2)(A)(ii) to both
sections 164 and 216 would be redundant. We disagree.
Section 67(b) refers to “the deduction under” sections 164 and
216, and section 911(c)(2)(A)(ii) refers to taxes “deductible
under” section 164 and “a deduction under section 216(a).” We
agree that a tax deductible under section 216 is not deductible
under section 164. However, section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii), which is at
issue here, refers to certain “taxes described in” section 164.
We assume Congress used different language because it intended a
different meaning. Francisco v. Commissioner, 119 T.C. 317, 323
(2002).
We agree with respondent that the phrase “taxes described
in” section 164(a)(1) applies to a tenant-stockholder’s deduction
under section 216(a)(1) because the amount of that deduction is
based on the amount of real estate taxes paid by the tenant-
stockholder’s cooperative housing corporation.
3. Avoidance of Anomalous Results
In interpreting a statute, we look first to the language of
the statute. Consumer Prod. Safety Commn. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.,
447 U.S. 102, 108 (1980). We have done so here, and we believe
the statute supports respondent’s position.
If a statute is ambiguous or silent, we may assume that
Congress intended policies it explicitly adopted in prior,
analogous situations to continue to apply. Commissioner v.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011