Court Opinion

ID: 9453472
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:14:31.993059+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:40.403647
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing
The appellee filed a petition for rehearing which was granted. Additional briefs were submitted and oral argument was heard.
The parties, for better or worse, agreed during the litigation that 26 U.S.C. § 1341(a) (4) was the applicable provision. The case was tried on this basis and so presented to this court.
On rehearing, as well as on the original presentation, the Government urges that the case of O’Meara v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 622 (1947), is determinative of the issue. The Government also urges that a construction of the section contrary to their position is not in accordance with the “spirit” of the legislation.
We are not prepared to rest this decision on the “spirit” of this portion of the statute. The rules of statutory *134construction are well established, and we are faced with a clearly worded section which refers to a very narrow point. This is not a provision referring to a matter of broad scope. Under these circumstances we must take it at face value.
The continued reliance by the Government on O’Meara v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 622 (1947), is of little assistance, but it is understandable. It is obviously part of the pre-statute (1954) case law on this point, but if it did develop any new condition, such a condition wa3 not carried over into the present section of the law. The matter of refunds of this character was well known when the statute was enacted, and we must assume that if Congress intended to create a condition as to the applicability of the section, it would have done so.
The O’Meara case does not purport to define “deductions” or anything else. This term, and the others here concerned, were defined by a myriad of cases where the issue was involved, both before and after O’Meara. Thus O’Meara was obviously part of the case law, but nothing it decided was incorporated in the statute nor influenced the construction of established tax terminology.
As stated in the original opinion, under these circumstances we cannot add a condition to the statute expressly or by a redefinition of terms, although we might wish to do so in view of the results. It is apparent that some remedial steps should be taken, but we cannot do so.
We adhere to our original opinion and disposition of the case.
Reversed.