Response by John F. Coverdale
In these pages I argued that courts ought not adopt what I called antiliteral interpretations of the Internal Revenue Code. By focusing on antiliteral interpretations, I deliberately confined my argument to interpretations that the text simply will not bear. My concern was not with interpretations that are strained but still plausible. Rather it was with interpretations that are so implausible as readings of the statutory text that there would be close to universal agreement that those readings do violence to the text, although they may be supported by valid policy reasons or by arguments based on a supposed intent that Congress failed to express in the language it enacted.
About the Author
John F. Coverdale.
Citation
72 Tul. L. Rev. 1759 (1998)