-17-
Accordingly, the argument goes, the entire section 2040(b) was
changed by the 1981 amendment.
"It is, of course, a cardinal principle of statutory
construction that repeals by implication are not favored."
United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 168
(1976). Nonetheless, an implied repeal may be found in certain
limited circumstances:
(1) Where provisions in the two acts are in
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of
the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the
earlier one; and (2) if the later act covers the whole
subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a
substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of
the earlier act. But, in either case, the intention of
the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest.
* * * [Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148,
154 (1976) (quoting Posadas v. National City Bank, 296
U.S. 497, 503 (1936)).]
1. No Irreconcilable Conflict
Respondent argues that the statutory provisions in issue
here are irreconcilably in conflict because under the 1981
amendment the point in time that a joint interest was created is
irrelevant, whereas the 1976 amendment applied only to "qualified
joint interests" created after December 31, 1976. Respondent
asserts that under the 1981 amendment, Congress "created a
single, simple rule of universal application and consistent
results".
Statutory provisions, however, are not irreconcilably in
conflict unless there is a positive repugnancy between them or
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