Swallows Holding, Ltd. - Page 108

                                        -64-                                          
          impermissible restriction to the statute.20  The functional                 
          reasons for deference to agencies; i.e., the agencies’ expertise            
          and experience, do not carry the same force when interpreting the           
          word “manner” for purposes of the relevant text.  The judiciary             
          has enough expertise and experience to ascertain congressional              
          intent with respect to that word, and any deference that is owed            
          to the Secretary does not mean that the judiciary as a matter of            
          course should simply ratify an unauthorized assumption by the               
          Secretary of major policy decisions properly made by Congress;              
          e.g., here, a foreign corporation’s forfeiture of deductions                
          absent its filing of a timely tax return.21  Cf. Estate of                  


               19(...continued)                                                       
          234, sec. 900(a), (k), 43 Stat. 336, 338, the Court of Appeals              
          for the Third Circuit has noted that the Board “for all practical           
          purposes [was] a judicial tribunal operating in the federal                 
          judicial system”.  Stern v. Commissioner, 215 F.2d 701, 707-708             
          (3d Cir. 1954), revg. on other grounds 21 T.C. 155 (1953).                  
               20 The improper addition to the statute is easily seen by              
          comparing sec. 882(c)(2) with sec. 1.882-4(a)(2), Income Tax                
          Regs., as amended in 1990.  The two sections are essentially the            
          same, except that the regulation includes the word “timely”.                
          Respondent has not explained why sec. 1.882-4(a)(2), Income Tax             
          Regs., as amended in 1990, stated that a return must be filed               
          both “timely” and “in the manner prescribed in section F” if, as            
          he argues, the concept of “time” is subsumed within the statutory           
          phrase “in the manner prescribed in subtitle F”.                            
               21 Absent a clear expression of legislative intent, we                 
          believe it unreasonable to conclude, as did the Secretary in the            
          disputed regulations, that Congress intended for a foreign                  
          corporation to forfeit any deduction of its otherwise deductible            
          ordinary and necessary business expenses simply because it filed            
          its tax return untimely.  Cf. S. Rept. 1707, 89th Cong., 2d Sess.           
          26-27 (1966), 1966-2 C.B. 1059, 1076-1077 (noting as to                     
                                                             (continued...)           




Page:  Previous  54  55  56  57  58  59  60  61  62  63  64  65  66  67  68  69  70  71  72  73  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011