to August, 1978. 26/ Also in these debates, Congr indicated very clearly that in his opinion the IRS 25/ The Ashbrook Amendment passed the House on Ju 1981. See 127 Cong. Rec. H5398 (daily ed., July 3 It was approved by the Senate Committee on Appropr September 15, 1981. See 127 Cong. Rec. D1057 (dai Sept. 15, 1981). Although the House bill has not enacted, it was temporarily effective from October until November 20, 1981, pursuant to Pub. L. No. 9 continuing Appropriations Act. That Act was exten amendment, to December 15, 1981. See Pub. L. No. December 15, a joint resolution further extending conditions for fiscal year 1982 became law. See P 97-92. 26/ See Appendix E, infra. n IRS procedures. pendix F, infra. One statement by Congressman hese debates could be read to suggest that he the IRS to have authority to deny tax-exempt iscriminatory private schools: IRS already has sufficient authority to with private tax-exempt schools which discriminate use of race. The proposed IRS regulations, and e Wrights's [Judge Hart's?] unconstitutional pation of Congressional taxing and appropriations thinly disguised as a court order ejected by this body, and in any case, will be cted by the voters this fall at the Presidential congressional levels. rs - - should ec. H7209 (daily ed., Aug. 19, 1980). However, ent also could be read in context as an acknowledgemen he IRS would continue to be able to act under its 1978 rulings and procedures. This would seem the able construction in light of the congressman's atements indicating that Green v. Connally lacked 1 authority and that tax exemptions should not be conequivalent of federal subsidies. See Appendix B. appropriations measures are "Acts of Congr "No appropriation shall be reported i general appropriation bill, or be in as an amendment thereto, for any expe not previously authorized by law, unl continuation of appropriations for su public works as are already in progre Nor shall any provision in any such b amendment thereto changing existing 1 In order. (Emphasis supplied) Accordingly, the Ashbrook and Dornan Amendme no legitimate basis for ascribing to Congress an trary to that reflected in the language of Section and its legislative history. Indeed, in light of 93-354 0-82--11 of the language of Section 501(c)(3), even less weight c accorded to conflicting views of subsequent Congresses r garding the interpretation of the statute. A similar issue of statutory construction was involv SEC v. Sloan, 436 U.S. 103 (1978), which involved a reena in 1964 of Section 12(k) of the Securities Exchange Act c 1934. 28/ In the Senate committee report accompanying th 1964 legislation, the Commission's interpretation of Sect 12(k) was endorsed. 29/ The Supreme Court rejected the argument that this later expression of congressional inte should prevail over the plain, and contrary, meaning of t statute, declaring (436 U.S. at 121): Even if we were willing to presume such general 28/ Section 12(k) permits the SEC "summarily to suspend trading in any security. . . for a period not exceeding te days" under certain specified circumstances. 22/ The Senate committee report stated: "The Commission has consistently construed section single statement in debate on the 1982 extension Amendment (see n.27 supra,). 30/ In the context differences of opinion expressed in the debates w to the validity of the Service's 1970 policy, thi 30/ Shortly after the IRS announced its new posi regard to the tax exempt status of racially discr schools, the IRS Commissioner appeared to testify Senate Select Committee on Equal Educational Oppo The Commissioner explained the Service's new poli proposed modes of enforcement. The Chairman of t Committee urged him to monitor attendance records to accept a private school's assurance of a nondi admissions policy. Hearings, Equal Educational before the Senate Select Comm., 91st Cong., 2d Se 2028 (1970). This colloquy amounted to no more t reiteration of the the Service's recent policy an of approval by an individual Senator. No legisla to the tax laws was proposed or considered. |