-82-
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the Board turned not on the
need to fill in a gap that Congress left in the statute but on a
matter of pure statutory construction. Those judicial tribunals
gave effect to the relevant text by reading the text literally
and without reference to any contrary argument that the text was
ambiguous as to the inclusion of a timely filing requirement.
The judicial tribunals’ reading of the word “manner” was
consistent with that word’s accepted meaning in legislative
practice, as seen from the Board’s discussion in Anglo-Am.
Direct Tea Trading Co. of the “structure” of the revenue acts.
Respondent with a citation to his nonacquiscence in
Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, supra, see
1939-1 C.B. (pt. 1) 39, argues on brief that the holdings in
Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. and Ardbern Co. v.
Commissioner, supra, as to the construction of former section
233 are incorrect and invites the Court to disavow those
holdings. We decline that invitation. We also disagree with
respondent’s argument that the applicability of the rationale of
the court in Ardbern is limited to those cases where a
29(...continued)
therefore, primarily limited its analysis of whether the statute
included a timely filing requirement to the statement of the
Board quoted supra p. 36. The court did point out, however, that
no provision in the Revenue Act of 1934, ch. 277, 48 Stat. 680,
precluded a late filing taxpayer who filed a return from
receiving the benefit of the deductions to which the taxpayer was
otherwise entitled. See id. at 426.
Page: Previous 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011