-16-
1997); Wilburn v. United States, 80 AFTR 2d 97-7553, 97-2 USTC
par. 50,881 (D. Md. 1997); Anderson v. United States, 78 AFTR 2d
96-6555, 96-2 USTC par. 60,235 (D. Md. 1996).
Express Repeal
Here, respondent begins by pursuing an express repeal
argument. Respondent argues that because section 2040(b)(1) and
(b)(2) are "interdependent", the alteration of subsection (b)(2)
in 1981 operated to expressly repeal the effective date of
subsection (b)(1). Yet respondent points to no language from the
1981 amendment that specifically repeals the effective date of
subsection (b)(1), and indeed there is none. See Patten v.
United States, supra at 1033-1034 ("Because the text of the 1981
Amendment does not mention the effective date of the 1976
Amendment, there has been no express repeal."); Gallenstein v.
United States, supra at 290 ("An express repeal requires that
Congress overtly state with specificity that the subsequent
statute repeals a portion of the former statute."). We therefore
reject respondent's express repeal argument.
Implied Repeal
Respondent next argues that there has been an implied repeal
of the effective date of section 2040(b)(1). According to
respondent, when Congress amended subsection (b)(2) it also
directly changed subsection (b)(1). Subsection (b)(1) no longer
applied as before because it now applied to a "qualified joint
interest", as defined in the amended subsection (b)(2).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011