-81-
not on the basis of matters within the special competence of the
* * * [agency], but by judicial application of canons of
statutory construction.” Barlow v. Collins, 397 U.S. 159, 166
(1970). Compare Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def.
Council, Inc., supra at 845 (Supreme Court exercised a very
limited review of an agency’s regulations after the Court
concluded that Congress had left a gap in the statute for the
agency to fill), with INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, supra at 446
(Supreme Court rejected an agency’s interpretation of a statute
after the Court concluded that the question before it was a
“pure question of statutory construction for the courts to
decide”).
In Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, supra,
the Board was the first judicial body to construe the relevant
text. It construed the meaning of the word “manner” plainly
using traditional tools of statutory construction. The Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit performed a similar textual
construction in Blenheim Co. v. Commissioner, supra at 908, by
simply reading and applying the words of section 233 of the
Revenue Act of 1934.29 The referenced decisions of the Court of
29 In Ardbern Co. v. Commissioner, 120 F.2d at 426 (4th Cir.
1941), the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit noted that
respondent had conceded that the taxpayer would have been
entitled to its claimed deductions if the return which the
taxpayer had attempted to file with the revenue agent had instead
been filed with the Collector at Baltimore. The court,
(continued...)
Page: Previous 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011