Therese Hahn - Page 15

                                        -15-                                          
          expressly states that it repeals a portion of the former statute.           
          The express repeal of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section              
          2040 by the 1981 amendment was deemed persuasive evidence that              
          Congress did not also intend to repeal subsection (b)(1).                   
               Next, the Court of Appeals concluded that there had been no            
          implied repeal of the effective date of section 2040(b)(1).  It             
          reasoned that, lacking any evidence showing an affirmative                  
          intention to repeal, an implied repeal can only be found where              
          two acts are in irreconcilable conflict or where a subsequent act           
          covers the whole subject of an earlier act.  In the court's view,           
          the two acts here peacefully coexist, as section 2040(b)(1)                 
          applies to a "qualified joint interest" created after 1976, while           
          section 2040(b)(2) merely redefines a "qualified joint interest"            
          for estates of decedents dying after 1981.                                  
               Furthermore, the court reasoned that because the two                   
          statutes here are not mutually exclusive, it could not be                   
          concluded that the later statute fills the entire area of law,              
          thereby rendering the prior statute ineffective.  The court                 
          dismissed as irrelevant the Government's extensive discussion of            
          legislative history, finding Congress' failure to change section            
          2040(b)(1)'s effective date dispositive of the case.  The Court             
          of Appeals' analysis rejecting both express and implied repeal              
          has since been followed by every other court that has examined              
          this issue.  See Patten v. United States, 116 F.3d 1029 (4th Cir.           
          1997); Baszto v. United States, 80 AFTR 2d 97-7740 (M.D. Fla.               




Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011