Justice Thomas, concurring. I agree with the Court that the Internal Revenue Code provision and the corresponding Treasury Regulations that control consolidated filings are best interpreted
as requiring a single-entity approach in calculating product liability loss. I write separately, however, because I respectfully disagree with the dissent's suggestion that, when a provision of the Code and the corresponding regulations are ambiguous, this Court should defer to the Government's interpretation. See post this page (opinion of Stevens, J.). At a bare minimum, in cases such as this one, in which the complex statutory and
regulatory scheme lends itself to any number of interpretations, we should be inclined to rely on the traditional canon that construes revenue-raising laws against their drafter. See Leavell v.Blades, 237 Mo. 695, 700-701, 141 S. W. 893, 894 (1911) ("When the tax gatherer puts his finger on the citizen, he must also put his finger on the law permitting it"); United States v. Merriam, 263 U. S. 179, 188 (1923) ("If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the Government and in favor of the taxpayer"); Bowers v. New York & Albany Lighterage Co., 273 U. S. 346, 350 (1927) ("The provision is part of a taxing statute; and such laws are to be interpreted liberally in favor of the taxpayers"). Accord, American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U. S. 468, 474 (1891); Benziger v. United States, 192 U. S. 38, 55 (1904). |
|
SATURDAY 2:00 PM EST
PHONE NUMBER 302-202-1122 |
|
|
