- 11 -
Bilder, 289 F.2d 291, 302 (3d Cir. 1961), revd. on other grounds
369 U.S. 499 (1962); Bowles v. Glick Bros. Lumber Co., 146 F.2d
566, 571 (9th Cir. 1945); see also Fullinwider v. S. Pac. R.R.
Co., 248 U.S. 409, 412 (1919) (policy may be used to resolve
uncertainty in law). Thus, even if section 56(b)(1)(A)(ii) were
ambiguous, we could properly resolve the ambiguity by reference
to Congress’s explicit adoption of a policy of providing similar
treatment of homeowners and tenant-stockholders in cooperative
housing corporations.
In 1942, Congress enacted the predecessor to section 216 to
treat homeowners and tenant-stockholders of cooperative housing
corporations similarly with respect to the deduction of real
estate taxes and interest. Adoption of petitioners’ position
would permit tenant-stockholders of those corporations to deduct
from AMTI amounts derived from their share of the real estate
taxes paid by the corporations, even though homeowners may not
deduct their real estate taxes from AMTI. In 1942, Congress made
clear that tenant-stockholders should not be placed at a
disadvantage compared to homeowners; it is just as inappropriate
that they be given an advantage over homeowners for AMT purposes.
4. Conclusion
We conclude that the term “taxes described in” section
164(a)(1) includes taxes deductible under section 164(a)(1) as
well as taxes deductible by reference to section 164(a)(1), such
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011