- 15 -
service is not being furnished, vans and similar
vehicles used for vanpooling or taxi service are not
eligible for the exemption from these taxes (and the
fuels taxes).
S. Rept. 95-529, supra at 55, 1978-3 C.B. (Vol. 2) at 247.3
Petitioners claim that the “predominant use” language in the
legislative history allows them to qualify under the first
alternative definition so long as the transportation they provide
is scheduled along regular routes. We disagree.
Prior to “construing the statute so as to override the plain
meaning of the words used therein” this Court requires
“unequivocal evidence of legislative purpose”. Huntsberry v.
Commissioner, 83 T.C. 742, 747-748 (1984). The excerpt
petitioners cites, in our opinion, does not constitute
“unequivocal evidence” of legislative intent to override the
plain meaning of the words used in the statute. In addition, the
language petitioners cite still requires that there is a “bus
which is used predominantly”. S. Rept. 95-529, supra at 55,
3Respondent argues that the predominant use sentence does
not apply to sec. 6421 because the language in that sentence does
not specifically mention gasoline or fuel taxes. We disagree.
Since the first and last paragraphs both mention gasoline and
fuel taxes, we conclude that the entire explanation pertains to
both secs. 6421 and 4221 and do not find that particular omission
significant. Petitioners also cite the language in sec. 48.4221-
8(b)(2), Excise Tax Regs., to support their interpretation of the
“bus” and “regular route” requirements. Since that language is
substantially the same as the language in the Senate report, we
subsume its analysis in the arguments based on the language in
the Senate report without reaching the question of whether those
regulations are applicable.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011