yours requires more logical leaps, is harder to support from a legal standpoint, conflicts with the plain language of the statute, and is outside the scope of the purpose for the amendment as stated in the Senate Report itself.
First off, there really are no leaps. It is a conclusion based on perspective, pursuant to what was happening at the time and what had happened. This has thoroughly been explained. You simply choose to reject the underlying currents.
Second of all, it doesn’t conflict with the plain language of the statute. It simply adds in another category of taxpayers. This has also been thoroughly explained.
Third of all, while it might be outside of the purpose of the anti-Hoopengarner amendment, it was well within the purpose of capturing other stuff that the anti-Hoopengarner amendment didn’t catch. Namely, Sec 212 activities that always intended to be Sec 212 activities.
There's no plain-language case for the last three sentences of the Committee Report doing anything other than discussing the term "active".
You say discuss, I say expand. This has also been thoroughly been explained.
All you've got is an argument about what the 1984 Report should say.
Not really. What I have is what the 1984 Report actually does say, but with perspective and context (as opposing to just reading the words, as you have done).
You can reference whoever you want and say whatever you want about your source.
Thank you for your approval.
It would be an idea different from what yours is.
Hopefully not, with respect to Sec 195, as per the 1984 Senate Report, which described a net lease as a “business” for that purpose.
This asks more of the practitioner and of the law.
Then why do the “practitioner” sources I cited agreed with me? The simple thing is to say that Sec 195 applies across the board.
By "all the little pieces", I don't see what you could mean besides the final two sentences of the 1984 Senate Report and the context they were written in
And one little piece about context is why those 2 sentences show up in the first place…if the 1984 statutory amendment adequately accomplished what Congress set out to do, the Senate Report would have stopped at, “The addition of this provision was intended to over-ride Hoopengarner.”