-58-
statutory construction”. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res.
Def. Council, Inc., supra at 843 n.9; see also Volkswagenwerk v.
FMC, 390 U.S. 261, 272 (1968); FTC v. Colgate-Palmolive Co.,
380 U.S. 374, 385 (1965).
We agree with the holdings in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading
Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B.T.A. 711 (1938), and its progeny, that
the plain meaning of the word “manner”, as used in the relevant
text, does not include an element of time. For purposes of our
Federal tax system, Congress has consistently used the word
“time” together with the word “manner” when it intended to
include the meanings of both words in a single taxing section.
In the Revenue Act of 1928, for example, from which section 233
emanated, Congress used both words in sections 115(g) and 291.
The former section addressed the situation where “a corporation
cancels or redeems its stock * * * at such time and in such
manner as to make the distribution and cancellation or redemption
in whole or in part essentially equivalent to the distribution of
a taxable dividend”. Revenue Act of 1928, ch. 852, sec. 115(g),
45 Stat. 822. The latter section provided that additions to tax
for failure to file a tax return “shall be collected at the same
time and in the same manner and as part of the tax”. Revenue Act
of 1928, ch. 852, sec. 291, 45 Stat. 857.
In the 1939 Code, when the relevant text was first codified,
Congress again used the words “time” and “manner” together when
Page: Previous 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011