author: Justice O’Connor Justice Stevens, Justice Thomas,

text:
    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. LUNDY
    No. 94-1785.
    Argued November 6, 1995
    Decided January 17, 1996

      O’Connor, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, JJ., joined. Stevens, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 253. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Stevens, J., joined, post, p. 253.

      Kent L. Jones argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Argrett, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Richard Farher, and Regina S. Moriarty.

      Glenn R Schwartz argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Lawrence J. Ross.

        David M. Kirsch, pro se, filed a brief as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

   Justice O’Connor

delivered the opinion of the Court.

In this case, we consider the “look-back” period for obtaining a refund of overpaid taxes in the United States Tax Court under 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B), and decide whether the Tax Court can award a refund of taxes paid more than two years prior to the date on which the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, when, on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed, the taxpayer had not yet filed a return. We hold that in these circumstances the 2-year look-back period set forth in § 6512(b)(3)(B) applies, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund.

I

During 1987, respondent Robert F. Lundy and his wife had $10,131 in federal income taxes withheld from their wages. This amount was substantially more than the $6,594 the Lundys actually owed in taxes for that year, but the Lundys did not file their 1987 tax return when it was due, nor did they file a return or claim a refund of the overpaid taxes in the succeeding 2Nz years. On September 26, 1990, the Commissioner of Internal Revenue mailed Lundy a notice of deficiency, informing him that he owed $7,672 in additional taxes and interest for 1987 and that he was liable for substantial penalties for delinquent filing and negligent underpayment of taxes. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6651(a)(1) and 6653(1).

Lundy and his wife mailed their joint tax return for 1987 to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on December 22,1990. This return indicated that the Lundys had overpaid their income taxes for 1987 by $3,537 and claimed a refund in that amount. Six days after the return was mailed, Lundy filed a timely petition in the Tax Court seeking a redetermination of the claimed deficiency and a refund of the couple’s overpaid taxes. The Commissioner filed an answer generally denying the allegations in Lundy’s petition. Thereafter, the parties negotiated towards a settlement of the claimed deficiency and refund claim. On March 17, 1992, the Commissioner filed an amended answer acknowledging that Lundy had filed a tax return and that Lundy claimed to have overpaid his 1987 taxes by $3,537.

The Commissioner contended in this amended pleading that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund. The Commissioner argued that if a taxpayer does not file a tax return before the IRS mails the taxpayer a notice of deficiency, the Tax Court can only award the taxpayer a refund of taxes paid within two years prior to the date the notice of deficiency was mailed. See 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B). Under the Commissioner’s interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B), the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund because Lundy’s withheld taxes were deemed paid on the date that his 1987 tax return was due (April 15, 1988), see § 6513(b)(1), which is more than two years before the date the notice was mailed (September 26, 1990).

The Tax Court agreed with the position taken by the Commissioner and denied Lundy’s refund claim. Citing an unbroken line of Tax Court cases adopting a similar interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B), e. g., Allen v. Commissioner, 99 T. C. 475, 479-480 (1992); Galuska v. Commissioner, 98 T. C. 661, 665 (1992); Berry v. Commissioner, 97 T. C. 339, 344-345 (1991); White v. Commissioner, 72 T. C. 1126, 1131-1133 (1979) (renumbered statute); Hosking v. Commissioner, 62 T. C. 635, 642-643 (1974) (renumbered statute), the Tax Court held that if a taxpayer has not filed a tax return by the time the notice of deficiency is mailed, and the notice is mailed more than two years after the date on which the taxes are paid, the look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) is two years and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award a refund. 65 TCM 3011, 3014-3015 (1993), ¶ 93,278 RIA Memo TC.

The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, finding that the applicable look-back period in these circumstances is three years and that the Tax Court had jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund. 45 F. 3d 856, 861 (1995). Every other Court of Appeals to have addressed the question has affirmed the Tax Court’s interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B). See Davison v. Commissioner, 9 F. 3d 1538 (CA2 1993) (judgt. order); Allen v. Commissioner, 23 F. 3d 406 (CA6 1994) (judgt. order); Galuska v. Commissioner, 5 F. 3d 195, 196 (CA7 1993); Richards v. Commissioner, 37 F. 3d 587, 589 (CA10 1994); see also Rossman v. Commissioner, 46 F. 3d 1144 (CA9 1995) (judgt. order) (aff’g on other grounds). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 515 U. S. 1102 (1995), and now reverse.

II

A taxpayer seeking a refund of overpaid taxes ordinarily must file a timely claim for a refund with the IRS under 26 U. S. C. §6511. That section contains two separate provisions for determining the timeliness of a refund claim. It first establishes a filing deadline: The taxpayer must file a claim for a refund “within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid.” § 6511(b)(1) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). It also defines two “look-back” periods: If the claim is filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed,” ibid., then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of “the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.” §6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). If the claim is not filed within that 3-year period, then the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of only that “portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.” § 6511(b)(2)(B) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)).

Unlike the provisions governing refund suits in United States District Court or the United States Court of Federal Claims, which make timely filing of a refund claim a jurisdictional prerequisite to bringing suit, see 26 U. S. C. § 7422(a); Martin v. United States, 833 F. 2d 655, 658-659 (CA7 1987), the restrictions governing the Tax Court’s authority to award a refund of overpaid taxes incorporate only the look-back period and not the filing deadline from §6511. See 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3). Consequently, a taxpayer who seeks a refund in the Tax Court, like respondent, does not need to actually file a claim for refund with the IRS; the taxpayer need only show that the tax to be refunded was paid during the applicable look-back period.

In this case, the applicable look-back period is set forth in § 6512(b)(3)(B), which provides that the Tax Court cannot award a refund of any overpaid taxes unless it first determines that the taxes were paid:

“within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2) ... if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment.”

The analysis dictated by § 6512(b)(3)(B) is not elegant, but it is straightforward. Though some courts have adverted to the filing of a “deemed claim,” see Galuska, 5 F. 3d, at 196; Richards, 37 F. 3d, at 589, all that matters for the proper application of § 6512(b)(3)(B) is that the “claim” contemplated in that section be treated as the only mechanism for determining whether a taxpayer can recover a refund. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) defines the look-back period that applies in Tax Court by incorporating the look-back provisions from § 6511(b)(2), and directs the Tax Court to determine the applicable period by inquiring into the timeliness of a hypothetical claim for refund filed “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.”

To this end, § 6512(b)(3)(B) directs the Tax Court’s attention to § 6511(b)(2), which in turn instructs the court to apply either a 3-year or a 2-year look-back period. See §§ 6511(b)(2)(A) and (B) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)); see supra, at 240. To decide which of these look-back periods to apply, the Tax Court must consult the filing provisions of § 6511(a) and ask whether the claim described by §6512(b)(3)(B) — a claim filed “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency” — would be filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed.” See § 6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). If a claim filed on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency would be filed within that 3-year period, then the look-back period is also three years and the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award a refund of any taxes paid within three years prior to the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. §§ 6511(b)(2)(A) and 6512(b)(3)(B). If the claim would not be filed within that 3-year period, then the period for awarding a refund is only two years. §§ 6511(b)(2)(B) and 6512(b)(3)(B).

In this case, we must determine which of these two look-back periods to apply when the taxpayer fails to file a tax return when it is due, and the Commissioner mails the taxpayer a notice of deficiency before the taxpayer gets around to filing a late return. The Fourth Circuit held that a taxpayer in this situation is entitled to a 3-year look-back period if the taxpayer actually files a timely claim at some point in the litigation, see infra, at 246, and respondent offers additional reasons for applying a 3-year look-back period, see infra, at 249-252. We think the proper application of § 6512(b)(3)(B) instead requires that a 2-year look-back period be applied.

We reach this conclusion by following the instructions set out in § 6512(b)(3)(B). The operative question is whether a claim filed “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency” would be filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed.” See § 6512(b)(3)(B) (incorporating §§ 6511(b)(2) and 6511(a)). In the case of a taxpayer who does not file a return before the notice of deficiency is mailed, the claim described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) could not be filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed.” No return having been filed, there is no date from which to measure the 3-year filing period described in § 6511(a). Consequently, the claim contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) would not be filed within the 3-year window described in § 6511(a), and the 3-year look-back period set out in § 6511(b)(2)(A) would not apply. The applicable look-back period is instead the default 2-year period described in § 6511(b)(2)(B), which is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency, see § 6512(b)(3)(B). The taxpayer is entitled to a refund of any taxes paid within two years prior to the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.

Special rules might apply in some cases, see, e. g., § 6511(c) (extension of time by agreement); § 6511(d) (special limitations periods for designated items), but in the ease where the taxpayer has filed a timely tax return and the IRS is claiming a deficiency in taxes from that return, the interplay of §§ 6512(b)(3)(B) and 6511(b)(2) generally ensures that the taxpayer can obtain a refund of any taxes against which the IRS is asserting a deficiency. In most cases, the notice of deficiency must be mailed within three years from the date the tax return is filed. See 26 U. S. C. §§ 6501(a) and 6503(a)(1); Badaracco v. Commissioner, 464 U. S. 386, 389, 392 (1984). Therefore, if the taxpayer has already filed a return (albeit perhaps a faulty one), any claim filed “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency” would necessarily be filed within three years from the date the return is filed. In these circumstances, the applicable look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) would be the 3-year period defined in § 6511(b)(2)(A), and the Tax Court would have jurisdiction to award a refund.

Therefore, in the case of a taxpayer who files a timely tax return, § 6512(b)(3)(B) usually operates to toll the filing period that might otherwise deprive the taxpayer of the opportunity to seek a refund. If a taxpayer contesting the accuracy of a previously filed tax return in Tax Court discovers for the first time during the course of litigation that he is entitled to a refund, the taxpayer can obtain a refund from the Tax Court without first filing a timely claim for refund with the IRS. It does not matter, as it would in district court, see § 7422 (incorporating § 6511), that the taxpayer has discovered the entitlement to a refund well after the period for filing a timely refund claim with the IRS has passed, because § 6512(b)(3)(B) applies “whether or not [a claim is] filed,” and the look-back period is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Ibid. Nor does it matter, as it might in a refund suit, see 26 CFR § 301.6402-2(b)(1) (1995), whether the taxpayer has previously apprised the IRS of the precise basis for the refund claim, because 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(B) posits the filing of a hypothetical claim “stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment.”

Section 6512(b)(3)(B) treats delinquent filers of income tax returns less charitably. Whereas timely filers are virtually assured the opportunity to seek a refund in the event they are drawn into Tax Court litigation, a delinquent filer’s entitlement to a refund in Tax Court depends on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) tolls the limitations period, in that it directs the Tax Court to measure the look-back period from the date on which the notice of deficiency is mailed and not the date on which the taxpayer actually files a claim for refund. But in the case of delinquent filers, § 6512(b)(3)(B) establishes only a 2-year look-back period, so the delinquent filer is not assured the opportunity to seek a refund in Tax Court: If the notice of deficiency is mailed more than two years after the taxes were paid, the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award the taxpayer a refund.

The Tax Court properly applied this 2-year look-back period to Lundy’s case. As of September 26, 1990 (the date the notice was mailed), Lundy had not filed a tax return. Consequently, a claim filed on that date would not be filed within the 3-year period described in § 6511(a), and the 2-year period from § 6511(b)(2)(B) applies. Lundy’s taxes were withheld from his wages, so they are deemed paid on the date his 1987 tax return was due (April 15, 1988), see § 6513(b)(1), which is more than two years prior to the date the notice of deficiency was mailed (September 26, 1990). Lundy is therefore seeking a refund of taxes paid outside the applicable look-back period, and the Tax Court lacks jurisdiction to award such a refund.

Ill

In deciding Lundy’s case, the Fourth Circuit adopted a different approach to interpreting § 6512(b)(3)(B) and applied a 3-year look-back period. Respondent supports the Fourth Circuit’s rationale, but also offers an argument for applying a uniform 3-year look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B). We find neither position persuasive.

The Fourth Circuit held:

“[T]he Tax Court, when applying the limitation provision of § 6511(b)(2) in light of § 6512(b)(3)(B), should substitute the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency for the date on which the taxpayer filed the claim for refund, but only for the purpose of determining the benchmark date for measuring the limitation period and not for the purpose of determining whether the two-year or three-year limitation period applies.” 45 F. 3d, at 861.

In other words, the Fourth Circuit held that the look-back period is measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency (i. e., the taxpayer is entitled to a refund of any taxes paid within either two or three years prior to that date), but that that date is irrelevant in calculating the length of the look-back period itself. The look-back period, the Fourth Circuit held, must be defined in terms of the date that the taxpayer actually filed a claim for refund. Ibid. (“[T]he three-year limitation period applies because Lundy filed his claim for refund . . . within three years of filing his tax return”). Thus, under the Fourth Circuit’s view, Lundy was entitled to a 3-year look-back period because Lundy’s late-filed 1987 tax return contained a claim for refund, and that claim was filed within three years from the filing of the return. Ibid, (taxpayer entitled to same look-back period that would apply in district court).

Contrary to the Fourth Circuit’s interpretation, the fact that Lundy actually filed a claim for a refund after the date on which the Commissioner mailed the notice of deficiency has no bearing in determining whether the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund. See supra, at 240-241. Once a taxpayer files a petition with the Tax Court, the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine the existence of a deficiency or to award a refund, see 26 U. S. C. § 6512(a), and the Tax Court’s jurisdiction to award a refund is limited to those circumstances delineated in § 6512(b)(3). Section 6512(b)(3)(C) is the only provision that measures the look-back period based on a refimd claim that is actually filed by the taxpayer, and that provision is inapplicable here because it only applies to refund claims filed “before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.” § 6512(b)(3)(C). Under § 6512(b)(3)(B), which is the provision that does apply, the Tax Court is instructed to consider only the timeliness of a claim filed “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency,” not the timeliness of any claim that the taxpayer might actually file.

The Fourth Circuit’s rule also leads to a result that Congress could not have intended, in that it subjects the timely, not the delinquent, filer to a shorter limitations period in Tax Court. Under the Fourth Circuit’s rule, the availability of a refund turns entirely on whether the taxpayer has in fact filed a claim for refund with the IRS, because it is the date of actual filing that determines the applicable look-back period under § 6511(b)(2) (and, by incorporation, § 6512(b)(3)(B)). See 45 F. 3d, at 861; supra, at 246. This rule might “eliminate] the inequities resulting” from adhering to the 2-year look-back period, 45 F. 3d, at 863, but it creates an even greater inequity in the case of a taxpayer who dutifully files a tax return when it is due, but does not initially claim a refund. We think our interpretation of the statute achieves an appropriate and reasonable result in this case: The taxpayer who files a timely income tax return could obtain a refund in the Tax Court under § 6512(b)(3)(B), without regard to whether the taxpayer has actually filed a timely claim for refund. See supra, at 244-245.

If it is the actual filing of a refund claim that determines the length of the look-back period, as the Fourth Circuit held, the filer of a timely income tax return might be out of luck. If the taxpayer does not file a claim for refund with his tax return, and the notice of deficiency arrives shortly before the 3-year period for filing a timely claim expires, see §§ 6511(a) and (b)(1), the taxpayer might not discover his entitlement to a refund until well after the commencement of litigation in the Tax Court. But having filed a timely return, the taxpayer would be precluded by the passage of time from filing an actual claim for refund “within 3 years from the time the return was filed,” as § 6511(b) (2)(A) requires. § 6511(b)(2)(A) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)). The taxpayer would therefore be entitled only to a refund of taxes paid within two years prior to the mailing of the notice of deficiency. See § 6511(b)(2)(B); 45 F. 3d, at 861-862 (taxpayer entitled to same look-back period as would apply in district court, and look-back period is determined based on date of actual filing). It is unlikely that Congress intended for a taxpayer in Tax Court to be worse off for having filed a timely return, but that result would be compelled under the Fourth Circuit’s approach.

Lundy offers an alternative reading of the statute that avoids this unreasonable result, but Lundy’s approach is similarly defective. The main thrust of Lundy’s argument is that the “claim” contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) could be filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed,” such that the applicable look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B) would be three years, if the claim were itself filed on a tax return. Lundy in fact argues that Congress must have intended the claim described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) to be a claim filed on a return, because there is no other way to file a claim for refund with the IRS. Brief for Respondent 28, 30 (citing 26 CFR § 301.6402-3(a)(l) (1995)). Lundy therefore argues that § 6512(b)(3)(B) incorporates a uniform 3-year look-back period for Tax Court cases: If the taxpayer files a timely return, the notice of deficiency (and the “claim” under § 6512(b)(3)(B)) will necessarily be filed within three years of the return and the look-back period is three years; if the taxpayer does not file a return, then the claim contemplated in § 6512(b)(3)(B) is deemed to be a claim filed with, and thus within three years of, a return and the look-back period is again three years.

Like the Fourth Circuit’s approach, Lundy’s reading of the statute has the convenient effect of ensuring that taxpayers in Lundy’s position can almost always obtain a refund if they file in Tax Court, but we are bound by the terms Congress chose to use when it drafted the statute, and we do not think that the term “claim” as it is used in § 6512(b)(3)(B) is susceptible of the interpretation Lundy has given it. The Internal Revenue Code does not define the term “claim for refund” as it is used in § 6512(b)(3)(B), cf. 26 U. S. C. § 6696(e)(2) (“For purposes of sections 6694 and 6695 . . . [t]he term ‘claim for refund’ means a claim for refund of, or credit against, any tax imposed by subtitle A”), but it is apparent from the language of § 6512(b)(3)(B) and the statute as a whole that a claim for refund can be filed separately from a return. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) provides that the Tax Court has jurisdiction to award a refund to the extent the taxpayer would be entitled to a refund “if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed.” (Emphasis added.) It does not state, as Lundy would have it, that a taxpayer is entitled to a refund if on that date “a claim and a return had been filed.”

Perhaps the most compelling evidence that Congress did not intend the term “claim” in § 6512 to mean a “claim filed on a return” is the parallel use of the term “claim” in § 6511(a). Section 6511(a) indicates that a claim for refund is timely if it is “filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed,” and it plainly contemplates that a claim can be filed even “if no return was filed.” If a claim could only be filed with a return, as Lundy contends, these provisions of the statute would be senseless, cf. 26 U. S. C. § 6696 (separately defining “claim for refund” and “return”), and we have been given no reason to believe that Congress meant the term “claim” to mean one thing in §6511 but to mean something else altogether in the very next section of the statute. The interrelationship and close proximity of these provisions of the statute “presents a classic case for application of the ‘normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.’” Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U. S. 478, 484 (1990) (quoting Sorenson v. Secretary of Treasury, 475 U. S. 851, 860 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted)).

The regulation Lundy cites in support of his interpretation, 26 CFR § 301.6402-3(a)(l) (1995), is consistent with our interpretation of the statute. That regulation states only that a claim must “[i]n general” be filed on a return, ibid., inviting the obvious conclusion that there are some circumstances in which a claim and a return can be filed separately. We have previously recognized that even a claim that does not comply with federal regulations might suffice to toll the limitations periods under the Tax Code, see, e. g., United States v. Kales, 314 U. S. 186,194 (1941) (“notice fairly advising the Commissioner of the nature of the taxpayer’s claim” tolls the limitations period, even if “it does not comply with formal requirements of the statute and regulations”), and we must assume that if Congress had intended to require that the “claim” described in § 6512(b)(3)(B) be a “claim filed on a return,” it would have said so explicitly.

IV

Lundy offers two policy-based arguments for applying a 3-year look-back period under § 6512(b)(3)(B). He argues that the application of a 2-year period is contrary to Congress’ broad intent in drafting § 6512(b)(3)(B), which was to preserve, not defeat, a taxpayer’s claim to a refund in Tax Court, and he claims that our interpretation creates an incongruity between the limitations period that applies in Tax Court litigation and the period that would apply in a refund suit filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. Even if we were inclined to depart from the plain language of the statute, we would find neither of these arguments persuasive.

Lundy correctly argues that Congress intended § 6512(b) (3)(B) to permit taxpayers to seek a refund in Tax Court in circumstances in which they might otherwise be barred from filing an administrative claim for refund with the IRS. This is in fact the way § 6512(b)(3)(B) operates in a large number of cases. See supra, at 244-245. But that does not mean that Congress intended that § 6512(b)(3)(B) would always preserve taxpayers’ ability to seek a refund. Indeed, it is apparent from the face of the statute that Congress also intended § 6512(b)(3)(B) to act sometimes as a bar to recovery. To this end, the section incorporates both the 2-year and the 3-year look-back periods from § 6511(b)(2), and we must assume (contrary to Lundy’s reading, which provides a uniform 3-year period, see supra, at 248-249) that Congress intended for both those look-back periods to have some effect. Cf. Badaracco, 464 U. S., at 405 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (“Whatever the correct standard for construing a statute of limitations ... surely the presumption ought to be that some limitations period is applicable”). (Emphasis deleted.)

Lundy also suggests that our interpretation of the statute creates a disparity between the limitations period that applies in Tax Court and the periods that apply in refund suits filed in district court or the Court of Federal Claims. In this regard, Lundy argues that the claim for refund he filed with his tax return on December 28 would have been timely for purposes of district court litigation because it was filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed,” § 6511(b)(1) (incorporating by reference § 6511(a)); see also Rev. Rui. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 428, and within the 3-year look-back period that would apply under § 6511(b)(2)(A). Petitioner disagrees that there is any disparity, arguing that Lundy’s interpretation of the statute is wrong and that Lundy’s claim for refund would not have been considered timely in district court. See Brief for Petitioner 12, 29-30, and n. 11 (citing Miller v. United States, 38 F. 3d 473, 475 (CA9 1994)).

We assume without deciding that Lundy is correct, and that a different limitations period would apply in district court, but nonetheless find in this disparity no excuse to change the limitations scheme that Congress has crafted. The rules governing litigation in Tax Court differ in many ways from the rules governing litigation in the district court and the Court of Federal Claims. Some of these differences might make the Tax Court a more favorable forum, while others may not. Compare 26 U. S. C. § 6213(a) (taxpayer can seek relief in Tax Court without first paying an assessment of taxes) with Flora v. United States, 362 U. S. 145, 177 (1960) (28 U. S. C. § 1346(a)(1) requires full payment of the tax assessment before taxpayer can file a refund suit in district court); and compare 26 U. S. C. .§ 6512(b)(3)(B) (Tax Court must assume that the taxpayer has filed a claim “stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court” intends to award a refund) with 26 CFR §301.6402-2(b)(l) (1995) (claim for refund in district court must state grounds for refund with specificity). To the extent our interpretation of § 6512(b) (3)(B) reveals a further distinction between the rules that apply in these forums, it is a distinction compelled by the statutory language, and it is a distinction Congress could rationally make. As our discussion of § 6512(b)(3)(B) demonstrates, see swpra, at 244-245, all a taxpayer need do to preserve the ability to seek a refund in the Tax Court is comply with the law and file a timely return.

We are bound by the language of the statute as it is written, and even if the rule Lundy advocates might “accor[d] with good policy,” we are not at liberty “to rewrite [the] statute because [we] might deem its effects susceptible of improvement.” Badaracco, supra, at 398. Applying § 6512(b)(3)(B) as Congress drafted it, we find that the applicable look-back period in this case is two years, measured from the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency. Accordingly, we find that the Tax Court lacked jurisdiction to award Lundy a refund of his overwithheld taxes. The judgment is reversed.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

dissenting.

Justice Thomas has cogently explained why the judgment of the Court of Appeals should be affirmed. I therefore join his opinion. Because one point warrants further emphasis, I add this additional comment. In my view the Commissioner’s position, and that of the majority, misses the forest by focusing on the trees. The predecessor to 26 U. S. C. § 6512(b) was amended to protect the interests of a taxpayer who receives a notice of deficiency from the IRS and later determines that the asserted underpayment was in fact an overpayment. Post, at 261-262. Congress expressly intended to guard against the possibility that the time for claiming a refund might lapse before the taxpayer in these circumstances realizes that he is entitled to claim a refund. As Justice Thomas has demonstrated, there is no need to read § 6512(b)(3)(B) — a provision designed to benefit the taxpayer who receives an unexpected deficiency notice— as giving the IRS an arbitrary right to shorten the taxpayer’s period for claiming a refund if that taxpayer has not yet filed a return. The Court’s reading of the statute converts an intended benefit into a handicap.

Justice Thomas,

with whom Justice Stevens joins,

dissenting.

Under the Internal Revenue Service’s longstanding interpretation of 26 U. S. C. §§ 6511(a) and (b), Lundy would have collected a refund if he had filed suit in district court. The majority assumes, and I am prepared to hold, that that interpretation of §6511 is correct. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) incorporates the look-back periods of §6511 for proceedings to recover a refund in Tax Court. Section 6512(b)(3)(B) also contains some language that permits a taxpayer in certain circumstances to collect a refund although he has not actually filed an administrative claim (or has not filed one in what would be a timely fashion under § 6511(a)). Because in my opinion nothing in § 6512(b)(3)(B) suggests that Congress intended to shorten the look-back period in a proceeding in Tax Court, I would hold that Lundy is entitled to his refund.

I

Since 1976, the Service has taken the position that if a taxpayer files a delinquent return containing an accurate claim for a refund within three years after the date on which the tax is deemed to have been overwithheld from his pay, then he can obtain a refund of that tax. See Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 428 (construing 26 U. S. C. § 6511(a)). This is because “[a] return shall be a claim for refund if it contains a statement setting forth the amount determined as an overpayment and advising that such amount shall be refunded to the taxpayer,” Rev. Rul. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull., at 428, and because a claim filed simultaneously with a return is filed “within 3 years from the time the return was filed” under 26 U. S. C. § 6511(a). The net effect of the interpretation of §§ 6511(a) and (b) adopted in Revenue Ruling 76-511 is that “if (i) a return is filed more than two but less than three years after it is due and (ii) a refund claim is filed contemporaneously or subsequently, ‘the refund would [be] allowable since the overpayment would have been made within the 3-year period immediately preceding the filing of the claim.’” Brief for Petitioner 29, n. 11 (quoting Rev. Rui. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull., at 429). The majority assumes that this interpretation of §6511 is correct. See ante, at 251-252. Under this reading of § 6511, Lundy would have received a 3-year look-back period and a refund if he had filed a suit in a district court or the Court of Federal Claims, rather than filing a petition in the Tax Court.

The harder step is determining whether the Service’s interpretation of § 6511 itself is correct. Arguably, § 6511(a) is ambiguous as to what point in time is relevant in determining whether “no return was filed.” The Ninth Circuit has held in Miller v. United States, 38 F. 3d 473, 475 (1994), that “[t]he point at which one must determine whether a return has or has not been filed [for purposes of § 6511(a)] must be two years after payment” of the taxes.

Congress’ intent on this issue is difficult to discern. There is reason to think that Congress simply did not consider how being delinquent in filing a return would affect a taxpayer’s right to recover a refund — in any forum. It appears that Congress chose the 3-year limitation period in § 6511(a) to correspond with the amount of time the Government has to make an assessment. See S. Rep. No. 1983,85th Cong., 2d Sess., 98-99 (1958). As construed by the Service in Revenue Ruling 76-511, subsection (a) of §6511 does create a limitation period for any taxpayer that will correspond with the period for assessment: the taxpayer has three years from the time he files his return to file a claim, and the Government usually has three years from the time the taxpayer files a return, for assessment. However, in cases where the taxpayer does not timely file his return, subsection (b) takes .back the symmetry that subsection (a) bestows. In those cases, the taxpayer may only recover a refund of tax that was paid within the three years prior to his claim, yet the 3-year statute of limitation on assessments is triggered by the filing of the return. These facts suggest that in enacting §6511, Congress quite likely was simply not thinking about the effects on delinquent filers. Or, to put it another way, Congress may have had no intent regarding whether §§ 6511(a) and (b) would permit a taxpayer to take advantage of a 3-year look-back period where the taxpayer’s return is not filed on time, and where the 3-year period thus cannot correlate with the Government’s assessment period.

Nevertheless, in light of the language of § 6511(a), the absence of any reason to think that Congress affirmatively intended to prevent taxpayers who file their returns more than two years late (but less than three years late) from collecting refunds, and the Service’s 20-year interpretation of §6511 in its Revenue Ruling, I would interpret §6511 in conformity with the Revenue Ruling.

II

Section 6512(b), rather than §6511, directly governs the amount of a tax refund that may be awarded in the Tax Court. The most striking aspect of § 6512(b)(3)(B), however, is that it incorporates the look-back provisions of §6511 — it directs the Tax Court to determine what portion of tax was paid “within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2).” To my mind, then, the question is whether the additional language in § 6512(b)(3)(B) (that directing the Tax Court to pretend that “on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed”), the statute’s legislative history, or other related statutory provisions indicate that Congress meant to prevent a taxpayer from receiving his refund from the Tax Court, even though the other courts could have ordered the refund.

Section 6512(b)(3)(B) does not merely incorporate §6511, of course. Instead, § 6512(b)(3)(B) provides that the Tax Court is to determine what portion of tax was paid “within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2)... ,if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed.” (Emphasis added.) The question is whether the addition of this language somehow prevents a taxpayer in Lundy’s situation from collecting a refund in Tax Court. In asserting that § 6512(b)(3)(B) does not permit recovery here, the Commissioner must tacitly rely upon one of two theories of interpreting that provision— that adopted by the Tax Court or that adopted by the majority.

Under the Tax Court’s interpretation in this case, “section 6512(b)(3)(B) directs us to focus on the situation as it would have been on a specified date — the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.” 65 TCM 3011, 3014 (1993), ¶ 93,278 RIA Memo TC. According to the Tax Court, § 6512(b)(3)(B) “requires us to ‘take a snapshot’ of the situation” on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed. Ibid. Hence, the applicable look-back period is the period that would have been applicable under § 6511(b)(2), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed and if a determination as to the appropriate look-back period had also been made at that time — that is, without the benefit of the information that a real claim was ultimately filed less than three years after the tax was paid. The majority’s interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B) is only slightly different — in a way that does not help Lundy. Under that interpretation, “the ‘claim’ contemplated in that section [is to be] treated as the only mechanism for determining whether a taxpayer can recover a refund.” Ante, at 242 (emphasis added).

Section 6512(b)(3)(B), does not, however, require the Tax Court to limit its consideration to events that occurred on or before the notice of deficiency was mailed. Indeed, if anything, the variance in tenses (“would be applicable . . . if. . . a claim had been filed”) suggests that the Tax Court should determine the proper look-back period in the same way that courts normally determine the applicability of statutes of limitation — with whatever information it has at the time that it rules.

Nor does the language of § 6512(b)(3)(B) make clear any intent that the deemed claim of § 6512(b)(3)(B) be treated as the only mechanism for determining whether a taxpayer can recover a refund. The statute incorporates the look-back periods of §6511 and then explicitly tells the Tax Court that, in applying §6511, it should pretend that an event happened “whether or not” it actually did happen; it does not tell the Tax Court to ignore events that did happen. If Congress had meant to say what the majority thinks it said, it could have added the words “no other claim is to be given effect.” Or it might have directed the Tax Court to determine if the tax was paid “within the period which would be applicable under § 6511(b)(2) with respect to a claim filed on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed.” Cf. n. 6, infra (26 U. S. C. § 6512(b)(3)(C) uses the phrase “period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2) ... in respect of [a] claim” when denoting the period applicable to a particular claim).

The Commissioner notes that § 6512(b)(3)(C) provides for the situation in which “a refund claim had actually been filed ‘before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency’” and argues that § 6512(b) does not provide any “additional” jurisdiction in the Tax Court for refund claims made “after” the notice of deficiency is issued. Reply Brief for Petitioner 3-4 (emphasis in original). But Lundy does not argue for “additional” jurisdiction; he asks only that § 6512(b)(3)(B), which appears to incorporate the look-back periods applicable in district court, not be construed as cutting off in the Tax Court a right to obtain a refund that he would have had in district court.

The Commissioner is perhaps making an expressio unius argument based upon the existence of § 6512(b)(3)(C). It is true that my interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B) — which permits a taxpayer to rely upon real claims as well as the deemed claim — might render § 6512(b)(3)(C) unnecessary. But it appears that § 6512(b)(3)(C) was not added to carve out an exception to some supposed implicit requirement in § 6512(b)(3)(B) that the only recognizable claim in the Tax Court be the hypothetical one. Rather, it was meant to clarify that a certain application of § 6512(b)(3)(B) was permissible. The Senate Report that accompanied the 1962 amendment to § 6512(b), which added what is now § 6512(b)(3)(C), explained:

“Since the 1954 enactment, . . . the Internal Revenue Service has in practice interpreted the law [i. e., § 6512(b)(3)(B)] as permitting the refund of amounts where valid claims have been timely filed, as well as where these claims could have been filed on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency.
“Your committee believes it is desirable to amend the language of present law (sec. 6512(b)([3])) to make it clear that the statute conforms with the interpretation of this section followed by the Service since the enactment of the 1954 Code.” S. Rep. No. 2273, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 15 (1962). •

Rather than demonstrating that § 6512(b)(3)(B) was meant to prohibit recognition of “real” claims, this Report, and the Service’s pre-1962 interpretation of § 6512(b)(3)(B) described therein, suggest the opposite: that subsection (b)(3)(B) did and does recognize “real” claims that would be recognized under §6511.

Congress likely failed to state specifically in § 6512(b) whether a subsequently filed claim should be considered in Tax Court because it simply did not consider how that statute would be applied to the taxpayer who failed to file a timely return — -just as it likely did not consider how §6511 itself would be applied to the delinquent filer. Although Congress’ intent, if any, as to how these statutes should apply where a late return is filed is obscure, its intent on two more general issues is more discernible.

First, Congress meant as a general matter to incorporate the look-back periods of § 6511(b)(2) into § 6512(b)(3)(B). If Congress had intended the Commissioner’s construction of § 6512(b)(3)(B), there would have been no reason to refer to §6511; instead, it could have stated the look-back periods much more simply and clearly, e.g., by specifying that a 3-year look-back period should apply if the taxpayer filed a return before the notice of deficiency was mailed, and that otherwise a 2-year look-back period should apply. Although, as noted below, Congress clearly intended to augment the taxpayer’s ability to recover a refund in Tax Court proceedings in certain circumstances, there is no evidence of any intent to prevent the taxpayer from recovering in Tax Court a refund that he could have obtained in a suit in district court.

Second, by adding the “if” clause in § 6512(b)(3)(B), Congress clearly did mean to favor a taxpayer who is notified, that he owes the Government money, is effectively forced to go to court to contest the deficiency, and is required to put together his records and possibly litigate against the Government, only to discover during that litigation that it is he who has provided a loan to the Government. The deemed claim of § 6512(b)(3)(B) is intended to protect the filer of a timely return who receives a notice of deficiency in the mail too late to gather his wits, review his papers more carefully, and file an accurate claim for a refund (or an accurate assertion of a right to a refund in a Tax Court petition) prior to the expiration of the 3-year period. When Congress amended 26 U. S. C. § 322(d), the predecessor of § 6512(b), in 1942, the House Report explained:

“In order to give the taxpayer the privilege to claim an overpayment before the [Tax Court] by such amendments to his petitions as may be allowed under the rules of the [Tax Court], without the period of limitations running against the refund of such overpayment after the notice of deficiency is mailed, [§ 322(d) is amended] to provide that the period of limitations which determines the portion of the tax which may be credited or refunded is measured from the date the notice of deficiency is mailed, rather than from the date the petition is filed.” H. R. Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 121 (1942).

Because § 6512(b)(3)(B) incorporates the look-back periods of § 6511(b) and because it appears that the variance in the Tax Court statute was meant to be more protective of the taxpayer litigating in the Tax Court in certain circumstances, I would hold that Lundy may recover his refund.

Ill

Lundy argues that he was no more negligent for failing to file his return within three years than he was for failing to file it within two years, and that it would be irrational for Congress to forfeit Lundy’s refund simply because the Service “beat him to the punch” in sending him a deficiency notice. I disagree. Allowing a delinquent taxpayer a shorter period of time within which to file his claim would not be irrational, nor would giving a taxpayer an incentive to submit his return before the Service calculates his tax obligation, locates him, and sends him a deficiency notice. Thus, for example, Congress might well have provided that if the notice of deficiency is sent prior to the taxpayer’s filing his return, the taxpayer will have only a 2-year look-back period in any forum.

What would not make much sense to me, however, would be deliberately to adopt this scheme only in Tax Court proceedings — i. e., to punish only the taxpayer whose cash reserves make it impossible for him to provide the Government a still larger loan in any amount it demands while the taxpayer pursues relief in the district court or Court of Federal Claims, the taxpayer who is too unsophisticated to realize that a suit in district court could preserve his right to a refund, and the taxpayer whose expected refund is too small in relation to attorney’s fees and other costs to justify a suit in district court. Obviously Congress could constitutionally have adopted such a strange scheme, but I will not simply presume that it has done so. Indeed, the Commissioner does not suggest any reason why Congress would have intended to do this; rather, it merely notes that there are many (generally unrelated) differences between Tax Court and district court proceedings and insists that the plain language of §§6511 and 6512(b)(3)(B) mandates this result.

As noted previously, the harder step for me is the antecedent one of determining that §6511 itself permits a refund in these circumstances, because it does not appear to me that either §6511 or § 6512(b) was written with delinquent filers in mind. Once that hurdle is cleared, however, it makes no sense to bar the taxpayer’s recovery in the Tax Court alone, when the language of § 6512(b)(3)(B) does not mandate this result and when there is no reason to think that Congress intended it.

       In relevant part, § 6511 provides:
      “(a) Period of limitation on filing claim
      “Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or reftmd of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.
      “(b) Limitation on allowance of credits and refunds “(1) Filing of claim within prescribed period
      “No credit or refund shall be allowed or made after the expiration of the period of limitation prescribed in subsection (a) for the filing of a claim for credit or refund, unless a claim for credit or refund is filed by the taxpayer within such period.
      “(2) Limit on amount of credit or refund
      “(A) Limit where claim filed within 3-year period
      “If the claim was filed by the taxpayer during the 3-year period prescribed in subsection (a), the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the period, immediately preceding the filing of the claim, equal to 3 years plus the period of any extension of time for filing the return. If the tax was required to be paid by means of a stamp, the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid within the 3 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.
      “(B) Limit where claim not filed within 3-year period
      “If the claim was not filed within such 3-year period, the amount of the credit or refund shall not exceed the portion of the tax paid during the 2 years immediately preceding the filing of the claim.
      “(C) Limit if no claim filed
      “If no claim was filed, the credit or refund shall not exceed the amount which would be allowable under subparagraph (A) or (B), as the case may be, if claim was filed on the date the credit or refund is allowed.”

       In relevant part, § 6512(b) provides:
      “(1) Jurisdiction to determine
      “Except as provided by paragraph (3) and by section 7463, if the Tax Court finds that there is no deficiency and further finds that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of income tax for the same taxable year ... in respect of which the Secretary determined the deficiency, or finds that there is a deficiency but that the taxpayer has made an overpayment of such tax, the Tax Court shall have jurisdiction to determine the amount of such overpayment, and such amount shall, when the decision of the Tax Court has become final, be credited or refunded to the taxpayer.
      “(3) Limit on amount of credit or refund
      “No such credit or refund shall be allowed or made of any portion of the tax unless the Tax Court determines as part of its decision that such portion was paid—
      “(A) after the mailing of the notice of deficiency,
      “(B) within the period which would be ápplieable under section 6511(b)(2), (e), or (d), if on the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency a claim had been filed (whether or not filed) stating the grounds upon which the Tax Court finds that there is an overpayment, or
      “(C) within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2), (c), or (d), in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency—
      “(i) which had not been disallowed before that date,
      “(ii) which had been disallowed before that date and in respect of which a timely suit for refund could have been commenced as of that date, or
      “(iii) in respect of which a suit for refund had been commenced before that date and within the period specified in section 6532.”

       I use the term “accurate claim” throughout to describe a claim for refund that (1) states the legally sufficient ground upon which the taxpayer eventually attempts to recover, and (2) contains enough detail to allow the taxpayer to obtain a refund in a district court or the Court of Federal Claims under 26 CFR §301.6402-2(b)(l) (1995).

       The Commissioner concedes that Lundy’s actual return constituted a claim for refund, see 26 CFR §301.6402-3(a)(5) (1995); Rev. Rui. 76-511, 1976-2 Cum. Bull. 428, and “provided a sufficient basis for the determination of [his] correct liability,” Brief for Petitioner 17, n. 6. The Commissioner also agrees that if Lundy receives a 3-year look-back period measured from the date of his actual return, then he will receive his refund.

       For example, if the taxpayer’s return is due on April 15, 1990, he is deemed to pay on that date any tax previously withheld. If he files his return on April 16, 1990, he must still file his claim by April 15,1993, but the Government will have until April 16,1993, for assessment. The more delinquent the return is, the greater the disparity between the taxpayer’s time for filing a claim and the Government’s time for assessment.

       Lundy argues that his actual claim superseded any claim “deemed” by § 6512(b)(3)(B) to have been filed on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed, and there is no reason to believe that a claim that would invoke the 3-year look-back period could not supersede a premature claim (i. e., a claim that preceded a return) and thereby give the claimant the benefit of the full 3-year look-back period. Indeed, the Commissioner apparently agreed at oral argument that a taxpayer who files a nonreturn claim before filing a return, then actually files a district court suit, then dismisses that suit, then files a return containing an accurate claim, and finally files another suit in district court asserting this ground would be in the same position as one who had never filed the first premature claim. That is, assuming that Revenue Ruling 76-511 is a correct interpretation of a taxpayer's right to recover in district court, the taxpayer in this hypothetical would be permitted to recover if the return was filed within three years from the time the tax was paid. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 25-26.

       I think it odd that the majority, like the Commissioner, reads § 6512(b)(3)(B) as taking into account one real fact that the subsection does not explicitly tell the courts to consider in determining the look-back period (the fact that no real return had been filed at the time the notice of deficiency was mailed), but as not taking into account another real fact (the fact that the taxpayer has filed a real return that also contains an accurate claim less than three years after the tax was paid).

       Section 6512(b)(3)(C) provides that the Tax Court may award tax paid “within the period which would be applicable under section 6511(b)(2)... in respect of any claim for refund filed within the applicable period specified in section 6511 and before the date of the mailing of the notice of deficiency,” provided that the claim was still viable at the time the notice of deficiency was mailed.

       The Fourth Circuit apparently held that, if a taxpayer files a, return prior to or simultaneously with filing his Tax Court petition, he will always get the benefit of a 3-year look-back period ending on the date the notice of deficiency was mailed. See 45 F. 3d 856, 868 (1995). This interpretation would protect a taxpayer who, unlike Lundy, filed a return more than three years after the tax was paid. The issue need not be decided in this case. Lundy did file a return containing an accurate claim for refund within three years of the time his tax was paid, and he would have received a refund if he had sued in district court.

       The majority reads the Fourth Circuit’s opinion as barring a taxpayer’s reliance upon the deemed claim in meeting § 65U’s requirements to obtain the 3-year look-back period (and as thus preventing a taxpayer who filed a timely return but filed a real claim more than three years later from recovering his refund in Tax Court). Ante, at 247-248. If that was indeed the Fourth Circuit’s ruling, then it clearly was incorrect. Under my interpretation, either the deemed claim or a real claim can enable a taxpayer to recover his refund in the Tax Court.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: Justice Ginsburg Justice Stevens, Justice Scalia,

license: Public Domain

text:
    BANK ONE CHICAGO, N. A. v. MIDWEST BANK & TRUST CO.
    No. 94-1175.
    Argued November 28, 1995
    Decided January 17, 1996

      Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Thomas, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and in which Scalia, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined, post, p. 276. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, post, p. 279.

      Robert A. Long, Jr., argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the briefs were Mark A. Weiss and Jeffrey S. Blumenthal.

      Jeffrey P. Minear argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief were Solicitor General Days, Assistant Attorney General Hunger, Deputy Solicitor General Bender, Mark B. Stern, and Douglas B. Jordan.

      Robert G. Epsteen argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief were Alan H. Zenoff and A. J. Zenoff.

      Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the Electronic Check Clearing House Organization by Robert G. Bailen, Gilbert T. Schwartz, and Dina J. Moskowitz; and for the New York Clearing House Association by Philip L. Graham, Jr., and Norman R. Nelson.

   Justice Ginsburg

delivered the opinion of the Court.

This case concerns the Expedited Funds Availability Act, 12 U. S. C. §§4001-4010, a 1987 law designed to accelerate the availability of funds to bank depositors and to improve the Nation’s check payment system. We confront a jurisdictional question regarding the Act’s civil liability provisions, in particular §§ 4010(a), (d), and (f): Is federal-court subject-matter jurisdiction under those provisions confined to suits initiated by bank customers against banks, as the Court of Appeals held, or do federal courts have jurisdiction, as well, over suits brought by one bank against another depository institution? We hold that the Act provides for federal-court jurisdiction not only in suits between customers and banks, but also in cases initiated by one bank against another bank.

I

Historically, the Nation’s check payment system has been controlled primarily by state law, particularly, in recent decades, by articles 3 and 4 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC). Although federal regulations have long supplemented state law in this area, see most notably Regulation J, 12 CFR pt. 210 (1995), the UCC has supplied the basic legal framework for bank deposits and check collections. But despite UCC controls, the check-clearing process too often lagged, taking days or even weeks to complete. To protect themselves against the risk that a deposited check would be returned unpaid, banks typically placed lengthy “holds” on deposited funds. Bank customers, encountering long holds, complained that delayed access to deposited funds impeded the expeditious use of their checking accounts. See S. Rep. No. 100-19, pp. 25-26 (1987).

In 1987, Congress responded by passing the Expedited Funds Availability Act (EFA Act or Act), 101 Stat. 635, as amended, 12 U. S. C. §§ 4001-4010. The Act requires banks to make deposited funds available for withdrawal within specified time periods, subject to stated exceptions. See §§ 4002,4003. To reduce banks’ risk of nonpayment, the Act grants the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve Board or Board) broad authority to prescribe regulations expediting the collection and return of checks. § 4008. The Board and other banking agencies are authorized to enforce the Act’s provisions administratively, by issuing cease-and-desist orders and imposing other civil sanctions. See § 4009(a) (incorporating administrative enforcement provisions of 12 U. S. C. § 1818).

The Act’s final section contains civil liability provisions, which are the focus of this case. See §4010. Subsection 4010(a) addresses a bank’s liability to persons other than another depository institution. It provides, in pertinent part:

“Except as otherwise provided in this section, any depository institution which fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this chapter or any regulation prescribed under this chapter with respect to any person other than another depository institution is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of [a specified measure of damages].”

Subsection 4010(f) governs a bank’s liability to another bank for violation of the Act’s provisions. It states:

“The Board is authorized to impose on or allocate among depository institutions the risks of loss and liability in connection with any aspect of the [check] payment system .... Liability under this subsection shall not exceed the amount of the check giving rise to the loss or liability, and, where there is bad faith, other damages, if any, suffered as a proximate consequence of any act or omission giving rise to the loss or liability.”

Subsection 4010(d) provides for concurrent federal-court and state-court jurisdiction over civil liability suits:

“Any action under this section may be brought in any United States district court, or in any other court of competent jurisdiction, within one year after the date of the occurrence of the violation involved.”

The Federal Reserve Board has implemented the EFA Act through Regulation CC, 12 CFR pt. 229 (1995). Sub-part C of Regulation CC contains rules to expedite the collection and return of checks. It requires banks, among other things, to return checks “in an expeditious manner,” § 229.30(a); provide prompt notice of nonpayment of certain checks, § 229.33(a); and include in the notice the reason for nonpayment, § 229.33(b)(8). Section 229.38 states standards governing interbank liability. It instructs banks to “exercise ordinary care and act in good faith in complying with the requirements of [Subpart C],” and further prescribes (in relevant part): “A bank that fails to exercise ordinary care or act in good faith . . . may be liable to” other depository institutions. § 229.38(a). Section 229.38 repeats the jurisdictional provision Congress placed in 12 U. S. C. § 4010(d), i. e., the regulation provides for concurrent federal-court and state-court jurisdiction over “[a]ny action under this subpart.” 12 CFR § 229.38(g) (1995).

II

This controversy stems from an interbank dispute regarding a dishonored check. Petitioner Bank One Chicago sued respondent Midwest Bank & Trust Co. in Federal District Court, alleging that Midwest had failed to comply with its obligations under Regulation CC. The facts underlying the suit are uncontested. A customer of Bank One deposited a check for $64,294.27 drawn on an account at Midwest. Bank One forwarded the check through the Federal Reserve System for collection, but Midwest returned it unpaid because Bank One’s endorsement stamp was illegible. Bank One properly endorsed the check, resubmitted it for collection, and made the funds available to the Bank One customer. Midwest again returned the check unpaid, this time stating that the payor’s account lacked sufficient funds to cover the check. By then, however, Bank One’s customer had withdrawn most of the funds from its account. Bank One sought to recover the amount it paid out to its customer against funds that remain uncollected.

On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled for Bank One. That court centrally determined: “Midwest did not act with ordinary care [when it] returned] the check for guarantee of endorsement without first checking the sufficiency of the funds in support of the cheek.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 12. To satisfy the payor bank’s obligation under 12 CFR § 229.38(a) (1995), the court explained, Midwest should have notified Bank One of the insufficient funds problem the first time Midwest returned the check. By failing to do so, the court concluded, Midwest had caused Bank One to lose $43,912.06. The court accordingly entered judgment for Bank One in that amount. App. to Pet. for Cert. 15. Midwest appealed.

The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit did not reach the merits of the appeal. Instead, the appellate court raised at oral argument, on its own motion, a threshold question of subject-matter jurisdiction. After affording the parties an opportunity to file memoranda, the Court of Appeals vacated the judgment for Bank One and ordered the District Court to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction. First Illinois Bank & Trust v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 30 F. 3d 64, 65 (1994).

Examining the civil liability provisions of 12 U. S. C. §4010, the Court of Appeals concluded that the EFA Act provides for federal-court jurisdiction only when a “person other than [a] depository institution” sues a “depository institution,” see 12 U. S. C. § 4010(a), i. e., principally, when a depositor sues a bank. 30 F. 3d, at 65. “Disputes such as [Bank One’s complaint against Midwest], between members of the Federal Reserve System,” the Seventh Circuit stated, “are to be handled administratively before the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System ... (or perhaps in state court).” Ibid. The court added, in response to a submission by the Federal Reserve Board: “Although the Board of Governors has informed us that no mechanism is currently available for administrative resolution of such [interbank] disputes, the Board’s differing interpretation of this statute cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court.” Ibid.

We granted certiorari. 515 U. S. 1157 (1995). Satisfied that the District Court had adjudicatory authority in this case, we now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Ill

The Court of Appeals and the parties advance diverse readings of 12 U. S. C. § 4010. According to the Seventh Circuit, § 4010 authorizes original federal-court jurisdiction only in actions between a bank and a person other than a bank. Subsection 4010(a) alone, in the Court of Appeals’ view, provides for rights immediately enforceable in federal court, and that subsection excludes interbank suits, for it applies only to “disputes between ‘any depository institution’ and ‘any person other than another depository institution.’” 30 F. 3d, at 65 (quoting § 4010(a)). Although § 4010(f) provides for interbank liability, the Court of Appeals read that subsection to authorize only administrative adjudication. In the Seventh Circuit’s words:

“The purpose of the [EFA] Act is to require banks to make funds available to depositors quickly. Thus the depositors have rights, enforceable in court, while the banks have obligations, which the Federal Reserve Board may establish by regulation and enforce in administrative proceedings.” Ibid.

The Court of Appeals did not say whether its reading of the statute encompassed an ultimate role for federal courts, as judicial reviewers of the Board’s administrative adjudications.

Midwest agrees with the Seventh Circuit that § 4010(a) alone describes court-enforceable EFA Act rights — rights that depositors can assert against banks. But unlike the Court of Appeals, Midwest is uncertain whether § 4010(f) authorizes administrative adjudication by the Federal Reserve Board. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 33-34. Remaining neutral on the Board’s competence as a forum for resolving controversies between private parties, Midwest urges that the issue before this Court “is not whether the Board may adjudicate the interbank dispute between petitioner and respondent,” but whether “the EFA Act confers on the federal district court jurisdiction to decide this dispute.” Brief for Respondent 23. In Midwest’s view, Congress intended interbank disputes to be resolved primarily in state rather than federal courts. Id., at 5-6.

Both Bank One and the United States, as amicus curiae, agree with Midwest that state courts have jurisdiction over interbank check payment disputes. But Bank One and the United States maintain that § 4010(f), by providing for interbank “liability” up to the amount of the check as well as “other damages” in certain cases, authorizes interbank actions for violations of liability regulations prescribed by the Federal Reserve Board. And they regard § 4010(d), which speaks of “[a]ny action under [§ 4010],” as instructing that suits under § 4010(f), as well as those under § 4010(a), “may be brought in any United States district court.”

We hold that the District Court, in the instant case, correctly comprehended its adjudicatory authority, and that the Court of Appeals erred when it ordered dismissal of the action for lack of jurisdiction. The language of § 4010, reinforced by the title of the provision and its drafting history, impel reading both subsections (a) and (f) as authorizing claims for relief enforceable in federal court as prescribed in subsection (d).

IV

Section 4010 is entitled “Civil liability”; its purpose is to afford private parties a claim for relief based on violations of the statute and its implementing regulations. Subsection (a) affords a claim for relief by making banks liable to “any person other than another depository institution.” It refers to both individual and class actions, and specifies the measure of damages recoverable in such actions. All agree that suits described in subsection (a) may be brought in federal court under § 4010(d).

Subsection (f) governs the area of liability not covered by subsection (a): banks’ liability inter se. It authorizes the Federal Reserve Board to “impose on or allocate among depository institutions the risks of loss and liability in connection with any aspect of the [check] payment system,” and states that “[liability under this subsection” shall be limited to the amount of the check, except in cases involving bad faith. In our view, subsection (f), like subsection (a), provides a statutory basis for claims for relief cognizable in federal court under § 4010(d). Both subsections impose civil liability for violation of the EFA Act and its implementing regulations. Though the two prescriptions are not parallel — most prominently, subsection (f) vests the Board with authority to establish the governing liability standards— they serve the same key purpose: Both permit recovery of damages caused by a regulated party’s failure to comply with the Act.

The drafting history of § 4010 casts some light on the discrete composition and separate placement of subsections (a) and (f). Under the versions of the statute originally passed by each House of Congress, subsection (a) encompassed actions between banks and persons other than banks, as well as interbank actions. The Conference Committee narrowed subsection (a) by excluding interbank actions, but simultaneously inserted, still under the section heading “Civil liability,” a new subsection (f). Compare H. R. Rep. No. 100-52, p. 10 (1987), and S. 790,, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., § 609(a) (1987), with H. R. C'onf. Rep. No. 100-261, pp. 105-106 (1987).

These changes reflect recognition that interbank disputes arising out of the check payment system may be more complex than those involving banks and depositors; such disputes, therefore, may warrant regulatory standards, set by an expert agency, to fill statutory interstices. Thus, in subsection (f), Congress delegated to the Federal Reserve Board authority to establish rules allocating among depository institutions “the risks of loss and liability” relating to the payment and collection of checks. 12 U. S. C. § 4010(f). Having conferred this authority on the Board, Congress sensibly consolidated in subsection (f) aspects of §4010 that relate to interbank disputes — liability limits as well as rule-making authority.

Congress no doubt intended rules regarding interbank losses and liability to be developed administratively. But nothing in § 4010(f)’s text suggests that Congress meant the Federal Reserve Board to function as both regulator and adjudicator in interbank controversies. Rather, subsections (f) and (d) fit a familiar pattern: agency regulates, court adjudicates. See, e. g., Securities Act of 1933, 15 U. S. C. §77j(c) (mandating compliance with disclosure requirements established by Securities and Exchange Commission); § 77k (creating right of action in “any court of competent jurisdiction” for violation of those requirements). As the United States persuasively contends: “Congress left it to the Board to determine the liability standards for losses in the inter-bank payment system because of the greater complexity of that subject, and not because Congress intended to create remedies that would be adjudicated in different fora.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 13.

We find implausible the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of §4010, under which interbank disputes would be “handled administratively” before the Federal Reserve Board. See 30 F. 3d, at 65. Our cases have not been quick to infer agency authority to adjudicate private claims. In Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U. S. 561 (1989), for example, we held that the Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation (FSLIC) lacked statutory authority to adjudicate creditors’ claims against insolvent savings and loan associations. Id., at 572. We observed in Coit, after examining the relevant statutory provisions, that “when Congress meant to confer adjudicatory authority on FSLIC it did so explicitly and set forth the relevant procedures in considerable detail.” Id., at 574.

Similarly, in American Airlines, Inc. v. Wolens, 513 U. S. 219 (1995), we rejected American Airlines’ argument that Congress intended the Department of Transportation (DOT) to serve as the exclusive adjudicator of air carrier contract disputes. Id., at 230-232. We noted that the DOT had “neither the authority nor the apparatus required to superintend a contract dispute resolution regime,” id., at 232, and accordingly declined to “foist on the DOT work Congress has neither instructed nor funded the Department to do.” Id., at 234.

As in Coit and Wolens, we find no secure signal here that Congress intended to assign to the Federal Reserve Board responsibility for the adjudication of private claims. The EFA Act’s civil liability section, 12 U. S. C. § 4010, does not explicitly confer adjudicatory authority on the Board, nor “set forth the relevant procedures” for resolution of private disputes. See Coit, 489 U. S., at 574. Section 4010, we stress, contrasts conspicuously with statutes in which Congress has given the Board adjudicatory authority. See, e. g., Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U. S. C. § 1843(c)(8) (authorizing Board to determine whether bank holding company may acquire shares in nonbanking entity); §1848 (providing for judicial review of such determinations); cf. Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U. S. C. § 18 (specifying detailed procedures governing adjudication of private disputes by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission).

Finally, we note that the interpretation of §4010 offered by Bank One and the United States is a sensible one. All check-related claims arising out of the same transaction may be brought in a single forum — either in federal court (which would have supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims, see 28 U. S. C. § 1367), or in state court. The reading of the statute proposed by the Seventh Circuit, in contrast, would yield an incoherent jurisdictional scheme. Bank-depositor claims would be adjudicated in one forum (state or federal court), while interbank claims under the EFA Act would originate in another (before the Federal Reserve Board). And interbank claims under state law would presumably have to be raised in a separate state-court proceeding. Even if the text of § 4010 could plausibly be read to create this decidedly inefficient jurisdictional scheme, we would hesitate to attribute such a design to Congress.

*. * *

For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Justice Stevens,

concurring.

Given the fact that the Expedited Funds Availability Act was a measure that easily passed both Houses of Congress, Justice Scalia is quite right that it is unlikely that more than a handful of legislators were aware of the Act’s drafting history. He is quite wrong, however, to conclude from that observation that the drafting history is not useful to conscientious and disinterested judges trying to understand the statute’s meaning.

Legislators, like other busy people, often depend on the judgment of trusted colleagues when discharging their official responsibilities. If a statute such as the Expedited Funds Availability Act has bipartisan support and has been carefully considered by committees familiar with the subject matter, Representatives and Senators may appropriately rely on the views of the committee members in casting their votes. In such circumstances, since most Members are content to endorse the views of the responsible committees, the intent of those involved in the drafting process is properly regarded as the intent of the entire Congress.

In this case, as the Court and Justice Scalia agree, ante, at 273-274, post, at 282, the statutory text of § 4010 supports petitioner’s construction of the Act. However, the placement of the authorization for interbank litigation in subsection (f) rather than subsection (a) lends some support to the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. When Congress creates a cause of action, the provisions describing the new substantive rights and liabilities typically precede the provisions describing enforcement procedures; subsection (f) does not conform to this pattern. The drafting history, however, provides a completely satisfactory explanation for this apparent anomaly in the text.

Justice Scalia nevertheless views the Court’s reference to this history as unwise. As he correctly notes, the simultaneous removal of the provision for interbank liability from subsection (a) and the addition of a new subsection (f) support another inference favoring the Court of Appeals’ construction of the statute: that the drafters intended to relegate the resolution of interbank disputes to a different tribunal. Justice Scalia is mistaken, however, in believing that this inference provides the “most plausible explanation” for the change, ibid. In my judgment the Court has correctly concluded that the most logical explanation for the change is a decision to consolidate the aspects of § 4010 that relate to interbank disputes — liability limits and rulemaking authority — in the same subsection. Ante, at 273. Thus, the net result of the inquiry into drafting history is to find the answer to an otherwise puzzling aspect of the statutory text.

I must also take exception to Justice Scalia’s psychoanalysis of judges who examine legislative history when construing statutes. He confidently asserts that we use such history as a makeweight after reaching a conclusion on the basis of other factors. I have been performing this type of work for more than 25 years and have never proceeded in the manner Justice Scalia suggests. It is quite true that I have often formed a tentative opinion about the meaning of a statute and thereafter examined the statute’s drafting history to see whether the history supported my provisional conclusion or provided a basis for revising it. In my judgment, a reference to history in the Court’s opinion in such a case cannot properly be described as a “makeweight.” That the history could have altered my opinion is evidenced by the fact that there are significant cases, such as Green v. Bock Laundry Machine Co., 490 U. S. 504 (1989), in which the study of history did alter my original analysis. In any event, I see no reason why conscientious judges should not feel free to examine all public records that may shed light on the meaning of a statute.

Finally, I would like to suggest that Justice Scalia may be guilty of the transgression that he ascribes to the Court. He has confidently asserted that the legislative history in this case and in Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U. S. 597 (1991), supports a result opposite to that reached by the Court. While I do not wish to reargue the Mortier case, I will say that I remain convinced that a disinterested study of the entire legislative history supports the conclusion reached by the eight-Member majority of the Court. Even if his analysis in both cases is plausible, it is possible that Justice Scalia’s review of the history in' Mortier and in this case may have been influenced by his zealous opposition to any reliance on legislative history in any case. In this case, as in Mortier, his opinion is a fine example of the work product of a brilliant advocate. It is the Court’s opinion, however, that best sets forth the reasons for reversing the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

Justice Breyer has authorized me to say that he agrees with the foregoing views.

Justice Scalia,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.

I agree with the Court’s opinion, except that portion of it which enters into a discussion of “[t]he drafting history of §4010.” Ante, at 273. In my view a law means what its text most appropriately conveys, whatever the Congress that enacted it might have “intended.” The law is what the law says, and we should content ourselves with reading it rather than psychoanalyzing those who enacted it. See United States v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 345 U. S. 295, 319 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). Moreover, even if subjective intent rather than textually expressed intent were the touchstone, it is a fiction of Jack-and-the-Beanstalk proportions to assume that more than a handful of those Senators and Members of the House who voted for the final version of the Expedited Funds Availability Act, and the President who signed it, were, when they took those actions, aware of the drafting evolution that the Court describes; and if they were, that their actions in voting for or signing the final bill show that they had the same “intent” which that evolution suggests was in the minds of the drafters.

Justice Stevens acknowledges that this is so, but asserts that the intent of a few committee members is nonetheless dispositive because legislators are “busy people,” and “most Members [of Congress] are content to endorse the views of the responsible committees.” Ante, at 276. I do not know the factual basis for that assurance. Many congressional committees tend not to be representative of the full House, but are disproportionately populated by Members whose constituents have a particular stake in the subject matter— agriculture, merchant marine and fisheries, science and technology, etc. I think it quite unlikely that the House of Rep-

resentatives would be “content to endorse the views” that its Agriculture Committee would come up with if that committee knew (as it knows in drafting committee reports) that those views need not be moderated to survive a floor vote. And even- more unlikely that the Senate would be “content to endorse the views” of the House Agriculture Committee. But assuming Justice Stevens is right about this desire to leave details to the committees, the very first provision of the Constitution forbids it. Article I, § 1, provides that “[a]ll legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” It has always been assumed that these powers are nondelegable — or, as John Locke put it, that legislative power consists of the power “to make laws, . . . not to make legislators.” J. Locke, Second Treatise of Government 87 (R. Cox ed. 1982). No one would think that the House of Representatives could operate in such fashion that only the broad outlines of bills would be adopted by vote of the full House, leaving minor details to be written, adopted, and voted upon only by the cognizant committees. Thus, if legislation consists of forming an “intent” rather than adopting a text (a proposition with which I do not agree), Congress cannot leave the formation of that intent to a small band of its number, but must, as the Constitution says, form an intent of the Congress. There is no escaping the point: Legislative history that does not represent the intent of the whole Congress is nonprobative; and legislative history that does represent the intent of the whole Congress is fanciful.

Our opinions using legislative history are often curiously casual, sometimes even careless, in their analysis of what “intent” the legislative history shows. See Wisconsin Public Intervenor v. Mortier, 501 U. S. 597, 617-620 (1991) (Scalia, J., concurring). Perhaps that is because legislative history is in any event a makeweight; the Court really makes up its mind on the basis of other factors. Or perhaps it is simply hard to maintain a rigorously analytical attitude, when the point of departure for the inquiry is the fairyland in which legislative history reflects what was in “the Congress’s mind.”

In any case, it seems to me that if legislative history is capable of injecting into a statute an “intent” that its text alone does not express, the drafting history alluded to in today’s opinion should have sufficed to win this case for respondent. It shows that interbank liability was not merely omitted from subsection (a), entitled “Civil liability.” It was removed from that subsection, simultaneously with the addition of subsection (f), 12 U. S. C. § 4010(f), which gave the Federal Reserve Board power to “impose on or allocate among depository institutions the risks of loss and liability in connection with any aspect of the payment system” (language that is at least as compatible with adjudication as with rulemaking). Now if the only function of this new subsection (f) had been to give the Board rulemaking power, there would have been no logical reason to eliminate interbank disputes from the “Civil liability” subsection, whose basic prescription (banks are civilly liable for violations of the statute or of rules issued under the statute*) applies no less in the interbank than in the bank-customer context. Nor can the removal of interbank disputes from subsection (a) be explained on the ground that Congress had decided to apply different damages limits to those disputes. The former subsection (a), in both House and Senate versions, already provided varying damages limits for individual suits and class actions, see S. 790, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., § 609(a) (1987); H. R. Rep. No. 100-52, pp. 10-11 (1987), and it would have been logical to set forth the newly desired interbank variation there as well, leaving to the new subsection (f) only the conferral of rulemaking authority. Or, if it were thought essential to “consolidate” all the details of interbank disputes in subsection (f), it would still not have been necessary to specifically exclude interbank disputes from the general “civil liability” pronouncement of subsection (a). The prologue of that subsection, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section,” would have made it clear that interbank civil liability was limited as set forth in subsection (f). The most plausible explanation for specifically excluding interbank disputes from the “Civil liability” subsection when subsection (f) was added — and for avoiding any reference to “civil liability” in subsection (f) itself — is an intent to commit those disputes to a totally different regime, i. e., to Board adjudication rather than the normal civil-liability regime of the law courts.

Today’s opinion does not consider this argument, but nonetheless refutes it (in my view) conclusively. After recounting the drafting history, the Court states that “nothing in § 4010(f)’s text suggests that Congress meant the Federal Reserve Board to function as both regulator and adjudicator in interbank controversies.” Ante, at 273 (emphasis added). Quite so. The text’s the thing. We should therefore ignore drafting history without discussing it, instead of after discussing it.

       The EFA Act applies to “depository institution[s],” as that term is defined in 12 U.S.C. § 461(b)(1)(A). See 12 U. S. C. §4001(12). For simplicity, we often use the term “bank” instead.

       Midwest observes that UCC §4-103,2B U. L. A. §4-103 (1991), treats Federal Reserve Board regulations as “agreements” between participants in the check payment system; damages for violation of the terms of such agreements, Midwest further asserts, would be recoverable as a matter of state law. See, e. g., United Postal Savings Assn. v. Royal Bank Mid-County, 784 S. W. 2d 906 (Mo. App. 1990).

       The Court of Appeals cited 12 U. S. C. § 4009(c)(1) as a potential source of the Board’s authority to adjudicate private disputes. First Illinois Bank & Trust v. Midwest Bank & Trust Co., 30 F. 3d 64, 65 (CA7 1994). But as the United States points out, that section merely authorizes the Board to use traditional administrative enforcement tools in securing compliance with the EFA Act. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 19. Section 4009(c) “does not create any mechanism for the adjudication of inter-bank civil liability claims.” Id., at 19-20.

       Bank One and amicus New York Clearing House Association contend that 28 U. S. C. § 1331 provides an independent basis for federal-court jurisdiction here. Satisfied that Bank One properly relied on 12 U. S. C. §4010, we need not and do not pass on this contention.

       The House passed the Act by a vote of 382 to 12. 133 Cong. Rec. 22110 (1987). The Senate approved the measure 96 to 2. Id., at 22181.

       Justice Jackson, whose opinion in United States v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal., 345 U. S. 295 (1953), Justice Scalia cites, was also a brilliant advocate. Like Justice Scalia, he recognized the danger of indiscriminate use of legislative history, but unlike Justice Scalia he also recognized that it can be helpful in appropriate eases. See Schwegmann Brothers v. Calvert Distillers Corp., 341 U. S. 384, 395-396 (1951).

       The Senate version of subsection (a) did not refer to violations of rules, see S. 790, 100th Cong., 1st Sess., § 609(a) (1987), but it was the House version of subsection (a), see H. R. Rep. No. 100-52, p. 10 (1987), which did specifically mention rules, that was retained.

       I have explained why the “consolidation” explanation developed by Justice Stevens, ante, at 277, does not ring true. Even if it did, however, it would not be accurate to say that the legislative history thus provides “the answer to an otherwise puzzling aspect of the statutory text,” ibid. What Justice Stevens calls “the answer” (viz., the wish to consolidate all the interbank provisions in one section) is no more evident from the legislative history than it is from the face of the statute itself Nothing in the legislative history says “we will consolidate interbank matters in a new subsection (f)”; Justice Stevens simply surmises, from the fact that the final text contains such consolidation, that consolidation was the reason for excluding interbank disputes from subsection (a). What investigation of legislative history has produced, in other words, is not an answer (that, if there is one, is in the text), but rather the puzzlement to which an answer is necessary: Why were interbank disputes eliminated from subsection (a) when subsection (f) was adopted? Being innocent of legislative history, I would not have known of that curious excision if the Court’s opinion had not told me. Thus, legislative history has produced what it usually produces: more questions rather than more answers.