The "No Surplusage" Canon in State-Local Tax Litigation

Steve R. Johnson, Florida State University College of Law

First published in State Tax Notes.

Abstract

Previous installments of this column have examined numerous canons or conventions of statutory interpretation in their application to state and local tax controversies. This installment considers another canon: the precept that courts should prefer interpretations that render no part of a statute superfluous. A recent treatise phrased the principle thus: If possible, every word and every provision [of an enactment] is to be given effect. . . . None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence. The first part below describes the canon generally. The second part identifies the reasons advanced for the precept, the objections lodged against it, and the limitations on it. The third part gives examples of the canon in state and local tax cases, both cases in which its assertion was successful and cases in which its use failed.

If possible, every word and every provision [of an enactment] is to be given effect. . . . None should be ignored. None should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence.

The first part below describes the canon generally. The second part identifies the reasons advanced for the precept, the objections lodged against it, and the limitations on it. The third part gives examples of the canon in state and local tax cases, both cases in which its assertion was successful and cases in which its use failed.