PROOF OF FACTS: Ambiguous tax statutes are to be construed against the government
The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that ambiguities in tax statutes are to be construed in favor of the party against whom the tax is laid. In Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 153 (1917), the Court recognized that:
“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes it is the established rule not to extend their provisions, by implication, beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out. In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the Government, and in favor of the citizen. United States v. Wigglesworth, 2 Story, 369; American Net & Twine Co. v. Worthington, 141 U.S. 468, 474; Benziger v. United States, 192 U.S. 38, 55.”
The term “citizen” as used above means a POLITICAL citizen by birth or naturalization and not CIVIL/DOMICILED “citizen” through domicile. Such a “citizen” would include the petitioner.
The Gould holding was affirmed just a few years later. United States v. Merriam, 263 U.S. 179, 188 (1923) (applying Gould, 245 U.S. at 153) (“If the words are doubtful, the doubt must be resolved against the government and in favor of the taxpayer.”); see also Hassett v. Welch, 303 U.S. 303, 314 (1938) (applying Gould, and holding that “if doubt exists as to the construction of a taxing statute, the doubt should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer . . .”). Members of the U.S. Supreme Court continue to apply this rule. See, e.g., United Dominion Indus., Inc. v. United States, 532 U.S. 822, 838–39 (2001) (Thomas, J., concurring) (collecting cases including Merriam), which requires that judges 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).