-84-
Congress is the legislator in our system of Government and when
an interpretation must be made of a tax bill enacted into law,
both the judicial and executive branches of Governments, the
latter acting through the Treasury Department, may render that
interpretation in their own constitutionally permitted ways.
As one of those ways, however, it is not reasonable for the
Secretary (or anyone else for that matter) to construe a
statute’s unambiguous meaning in a manner contrary to that
intended by Congress in passing the legislation. Such is
especially so where, as here, the Secretary attempts to
circumvent longstanding judicial decisions that have arrived at
the plain meaning of a statute enacted decades before. After
the passage of over a half of a century, during which the law on
this subject has remained settled and has been relied upon by
both taxpayers and the Government alike, it is simply wrong for
the Secretary to attempt to resurrect a failed litigating
position through the issuance of interpretative regulations.31
30(...continued)
18 months after their due date. Indeed, the facts in support of
an allowance of deductions are even stronger here. While the
taxpayer in Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. filed its returns
only after respondent discovered that the returns were overdue,
petitioner filed its returns before any contact from respondent.
31 Congress is the only body that may amend the relevant
text. Respondent makes no assertion that the Secretary ever
asked Congress to amend the text to change the holding of
Anglo-Am. Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, supra, and its
progeny that the text does not include a timely filing
(continued...)
Page: Previous 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011