- 11 -
participated in the CWT program, a veterans’ program administered
by the VA, and, on account thereof, (2) he received a
distribution from the VA Special Therapeutic and Rehabilitation
Activities Fund established pursuant to section 1718(c)(1)
(sometimes, simply, the distribution), we are left only to
determine whether the distribution constitutes a veterans’
“benefit” within the meaning 38 U.S.C. section 5301(a) (2000).
B. Principles of Statutory Construction
As a general matter, if the language of a statute is
unambiguous on its face, we apply the statute in accordance with
its terms, without resort to extrinsic interpretive aids such as
legislative history. E.g., Garber Indus. Holding Co. v.
Commissioner, 124 T.C. 1 (2005), affd. 435 F.3d 555 (5th Cir.
2006). Accordingly, our initial inquiry is whether the language
of 38 U.S.C. section 5301(a) is so plain as to permit only one
reasonable interpretation insofar as the question presented in
this case is concerned. See, e.g., Robinson v. Shell Oil Co.,
519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). That threshold determination must be
made with reference to the context in which such language
appears. Id. at 341.
We also keep in mind that, when interpreting statutes
relating to veterans, Federal veterans’ benefit statutes are to
be liberally construed for the benefit of a returning veteran,
see Coffy v. Republic Steel Corp., 447 U.S. 191, 196 (1980), and
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007