did not intend the five-year [now six-year] limitations period to apply whenever gross income was understated.” Colony, 357 U.S. at 35, 78 S.Ct. 1033. These references are as persuasive to us as they were to the Supreme Court in Colony. Referring to § 275(c), the Colony Court stated that while it could not be said that the statutory language was “unambiguous,” it was “inclined to think that the statute on its face len[t] itself more plausibly to the taxpayer’s interpretation.” Id. at 33. In Colony, the taxpayer advanced a plain meaning of the “omits from gross income” language in § 275(c). Id. at 32-33. By this logic, we think it prudent to take note of the ordinary meaning of “omits” today. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476, 114 S.Ct. 996, 127 L.Ed.2d 308 (1994) (<HOLDING>). The meaning of “omits” in today’s parlance
recognizing that in the absence of a statutory definition statutory terms are construed in accordance with their ordinary or natural meaning holding because legislature knew how to include terms within statutory definition and did not do so statutory definition did not include terms in light of the terms contemporaneous inclusion of the same terms in a separate provision holding that an undefined statutory term should be given its natural ordinary meaning holding that in the absence of a statutory definition a term should be accorded its ordinary meaning holding that a broad statutory definition of a term that was inconsistent with the terms plain meaning did not affect the terms definition in other contexts