René Matteotti (University of Bern Tax Law Institute) has published Struggling with Words in Tax Jurisprudence — A Plea for an Equal Treatment Mode of Analysis in Construing Tax Statutes, also available on the Tax Analysts web site as Doc 2005-14392, 2005 TNT 130-30:

Innumerable tax cases have illustrated that the method of interpretation has a critical impact on the equal distribution of the tax burden among taxpayers. In order to preserve the integrity of the Internal Revenue Code, over and over again the federal courts have not shrunk from giving preference to statutory purposes over statutory language. In Gitlitz v. Commissioner, the U.S. Supreme Court has now rebuffed the previous tax jurisprudence of the federal courts and applied a strict literal approach. Since the Supreme Court simply ignores its own previous tax jurisprudence without giving any reasons, Gitlitz increases the confusion about whether and when a nonliteral interpretation of the Code is permissible. This uncertainty in the current tax jurisprudence creates the risk that the different players on the tax field will not apply an objective standard when interpreting the Code but will elect the interpretation method which most likely produces the result which reflects their personal notion of "sound" tax policy and tax justice. The article seeks to contribute to the question how courts should deal with conflicts between statutory language and statutory purpose. It pleas for an equal treatment mode of analysis, according to which courts should deviate from the strict letter of the law and give effect to the statutory purpose if the literal application of the law led to a result which could not be justified under the principle of equal treatment.