8
the texts of other related congressional Acts.” Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit II
Men’s Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 199 (1993). Here, nothing in the surrounding
text forecloses a gender-neutral reading of the gender-specific terms. Rather, the
provisions of the Code that use the terms “husband and wife,” “husband,” and “wife” are
inextricably interwoven with provisions that use gender-neutral terms like “spouse” and
“marriage,” indicating that Congress viewed them to be equivalent. For example,
section 1(a) sets forth the tax imposed on "every married individual (as defined in
section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013,”
even though section 6013 provides that a "husband and wife” make a single return
jointly of income. Similarly, section 2513 of the Code is entitled “Gifts by Husband or
Wife to Third Party,” but uses no gender-specific terms in its text. See also, e.g., §§
62(b)(3), 1361(c)(1).
This interpretation is also consistent with the legislative history. The legislative
history of section 6013, for example, uses the term “married taxpayers” interchangeably
with the terms “husband” and “wife” to describe those individuals who may elect to file a
joint return, and there is no indication that Congress intended those terms to refer only
to a subset of individuals who are legally married. See, e.g., S. Rep. No. 82-781,
Finance, Part 1, p. 48 (Sept. 18, 1951). Accordingly, the most logical reading is that the
terms “husband and wife” were used because they were viewed, at the time of
enactment, as equivalent to the term “persons married to each other.” There is nothing
in the Code to suggest that Congress intended to exclude from the meaning of these
terms any couple otherwise legally married under state law.