-20-
legislative history provides little guidance).12 Accordingly,
respondent's appeal to legislative history is unavailing.
b. Potential for Abuse
Respondent also speculates about the potential for abuse in
the situation where the surviving spouse furnished the entire
consideration for the jointly held property. Respondent posits
that the estate of the deceased joint tenant has an "election" to
purposely fail to carry its burden of proving that the survivor
furnished any of the consideration for the joint interest. This
would result in 100 percent of the property being included in the
decedent's gross estate under section 2040(a), and, according to
respondent, a corresponding step-up in basis for 100 percent of
the property for the survivor, with no concurrent increase in
estate tax (because of the unlimited marital deduction).
Respondent argues that Congress could not have intended this
result, and, therefore, the 1981 amendment impliedly repealed the
effective date of section 2040(b)(1).
Again, respondent's argument fails to establish either an
irreconcilable conflict or that the later act covers the whole
subject of the earlier one. Moreover, respondent simply
misapprehends the operation of the burden of proof in this
12Even if it did support respondent's argument, we would
hesitate to resort to legislative history to discern Congress'
intent, as we find no ambiguity in the statute as written. See
Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U.S. 393, 401 (1992) (appeals to
legislative history are well taken only to resolve statutory
ambiguity).
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