Burgess J.W. Raby & William L. Raby have published Wachovia, OfficeMax, and Clear Language vs. IRS Interpretation, also available on the Tax Analysts web site as Doc 2005-24648, 2005 TNT 235-57.  Here is the Introduction:

Is there any statute of limitations on seeking a refund when a taxpayer not required to do so has filed a tax return and paid tax under the mistaken belief that a return was required? Will a tax that requires X and Y to occur before being imposed be imposed if either X or Y occurs? Those are the types of practical questions that arise when the Internal Revenue Code is read literally. The first question is the subject of Wachovia Bank N.A. v. United States, No. 3:03-CV-790-J-25 TEM, Doc 2005-8369, 2005 TNT 78-37 (M.D. Fla. 2005); the second question is the focus of OfficeMax, Inc. v. United States, No. 04-4009, Doc 2005- 22251, 2005 TNT 212-15 (6th Cir. 2005). The opinions in those cases both find for the taxpayer and both conclude that the tax law should be interpreted to mean what it says and not what it might have been more logical for it to have said, but one of those opinions is likely to be the subject of further litigation — and maybe even a trip to the Supreme Court.