-96-
(3)(i) and (ii), Income Tax Regs., thus fills a gap not only in
the language of section 882(c)(2), but also in the language of
the 1957 regulation; just as Taylor Sec., Inc. and its progeny
filled a gap in the language of the predecessor of section
882(c)(2).
(5) In its discussion of the legislative reenactment
doctrine, see majority op. pp. 69-74, the majority opinion
ignores a significant limitation on the legislative reenactment
doctrine as follows:
[The legislative reenactment doctrine] does not apply where
nothing indicates that the legislature had its attention
directed to the administrative interpretation upon
reenactment. [2B Singer, Sutherland Statutory Construction
� 49:09 (6th ed. 2000).]
In this case, in reenacting section 882(c)(2) and its
predecessor, no evidence indicates that Congress had “its
attention directed” to any of the 1930s and 1940s court opinions
involving a deadline for foreign corporations to file their tax
returns in order to preserve deductions and credits under the
predecessor of section 882(c)(2). Absent such evidence, any
application herein of the legislative reenactment doctrine would
be inappropriate.2
2 A vague statement in one of respondent’s briefs that
Congress “was aware of” the early Board of Tax Appeals and other
court opinions is puzzling and ambiguous.
Page: Previous 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011