-114-
have known what it was doing when it included “manner” and left
out “time”. Majority op. pp. 58-60. They conclude:
We understand that use [i.e., of the word
“manner”] to refer to items of information
and not to refer to the time for the filing
of a return or the furnishing of any other
document. We conclude that Congress, by
using only the word “manner” in section
882(c)(2), did not intend to include in that
provision any element of time.* * *
Majority op. pp. 61-62.8
This was also more or less the reasoning of our
predecessor, the Board of Tax Appeals, in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea
Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938). But there
are at least two problems with this reasoning. The first is
that, as is usually the case with a statute as old and overgrown
as the Code, there are counterexamples of the use of the word
“manner.” Consider, for example, section 179(c). This section
gives small businesses the option of expensing capital
purchases. Such an election “shall be made in such manner as
the Secretary may by regulations prescribe.” He prescribed such
8 The Code governs the “place” of filing returns as well as
their “time” and “manner.” Part VII of subtitle F has detailed
rules, which the IRS has supplemented with extensive regulations.
Treas. Regs. 1.6091-1, 20.6091-1, 25.6091-1, 31.6091-1, 40.6091-
1, 41.6091-1, 44.6091-1, 53.6091-1, 55.6091-1, 156.6091-1,
157.6091-1T, 301.6091-1, 1.6091-2, 1.6091-3, 1.6091-4. Given
today’s narrow reading of “manner prescribed under subtitle F,”
we may someday have to decide whether a return that a foreign
corporation intentionally sends astray could trigger a loss of
deductions.
Page: Previous 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011