Summary

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Haggar Company v. Helvering — Opinion of the Court

No one, not even the Government, will be prejudiced by its rejection, and as we have said the construction flies in the face of the purposes of the statute and the plain meaning of its words. Judicial obeisance to administrative action cannot be pressed so far.
It is said that Congress, by the change of the language of the capital stock provisions adopted in the 1938 Revenue Act has attributed to the earlier statute the same meaning as that ascribed to it by the administrative construction.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of Harlan F. Stone Harlan F. Stone Haggar Company v. Helvering — Opinion of the Court

It is equally plain that by its rejection petitioner has been denied an opportunity to make a declaration of capital stock value which it was the obvious purpose of the statute to give, and that denial is for no other reason than that the declaration appeared in an amended instead of an unamended return. We think that the words of the statute, fairly read in the light of the purpose, disclosed by its own terms, require no such harsh and incongruous result.
Section 215 nowhere mentions amendment of returns or amended returns.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature