- 13 -
2057(b)(1)(C)) will be taken into account indicates that no such
limitation was intended and therefore that “loan” interests
should be taken into account. Petitioners cite the proposition
that “where a statute, with reference to one subject contains a
given provision, the omission of such provision from a similar
statute concerning a related subject is significant to show that
a different intention existed”. 2B Singer, Sutherland Statutory
Construction, sec. 51.02, at 199-201 (6th ed. 2000); see also
United States v. Lamere, 980 F.2d 506, 513 (8th Cir. 1992)
(“Where language is included in one section of a statute but
omitted in another section of the same statute, it is generally
presumed that the disparate inclusion and exclusion * * * [were]
done intentionally and purposely.”); Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc.
v. Commissioner, 115 T.C. 269, 274 (2000), affd. 271 F.3d 763
(8th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).
Petitioners also note that section 2057 contains a number of
references to “any” interest in a qualified family-owned
business, suggesting to petitioners that the reference in section
2057(e)(1)(B) to “an” interest is not to be limited to just an
“equity” interest. See sec. 2057(e)(2)(A) (“any” interest in a
trade or business); id. subpar. (B) (“any” interest in an
entity); id. subpar. (C) (“any” interest in a trade or business).
We note that no regulations have been promulgated under
section 2057.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: March 27, 2008