-19-
leaving its actual substance intact. We are not at liberty,
however, to rewrite the Internal Revenue Code in that fashion.
3. No Clear and Manifest Intent To Repeal
a. Legislative History
Respondent further argues that the legislative history of
the 1981 amendment demonstrates that Congress intended to repeal
the effective date of section 2040(b)(1). Respondent looks to
the following language for support:
In view of the unlimited marital deduction adopted
by the committee bill, the taxation of jointly held
property between spouses is only relevant for
determining the basis of property to the survivor
(under sec. 1014) and the qualification for certain
provisions * * * Accordingly, the committee believes
it appropriate to adopt an easily administered rule
under which each spouse would be considered to own one-
half of jointly held property, regardless of which
spouse furnished the original consideration. [H. Rept.
97-201, at 160 (1981), 1981-2 C.B. 352, 378; see also
S. Rept. 97-144, at 126-127 (1981), 1981-2 C.B. 412,
461.]
Respondent attempts to use this language to demonstrate that
Congress intended for the 1981 amendment to repeal the effective
date of section 2040(b)(1).
This argument must necessarily fail because it does not
demonstrate an irreconcilable conflict or that the later act
covers the whole subject of the earlier one. Furthermore, we
find nothing in this language indicating that Congress meant to
alter or eliminate the effective date of section 2040(b)(1). See
Patten v. United States, supra at 1036 n.5 (noting that the
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