- 54 -
inclusion or exclusion from income of amounts received before its
effective date.
Even if post-SBJPA section were retroactive, it would not
run afoul of the standard for retroactivity of tax laws. In
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994), the
Supreme Court stated the following rule:
When a case implicates a federal statute enacted
after the events in suit, the court’s first task is to
determine whether Congress has expressly prescribed the
statute’s proper reach. If Congress has done so, of
course, there is no need to resort to judicial default
rules. When, however, the statute contains no such
express command, the court must determine whether the
new statute would have retroactive effect, i.e.,
whether it would impair rights a party possessed when
he acted, increase a party’s liability for past
conduct, or impose new duties with respect to
transactions already completed. If the statute would
operate retroactively, our traditional presumption
teaches that it does not govern absent clear
congressional intent favoring such a result.
Hence, the threshold question is whether Congress expressly
provided that the disputed statute should apply retroactively or
prospectively.
While the Supreme Court has indicated that “A statement that
a statute will become effective on a certain date does not even
arguably suggest that it has any application to conduct that
occurred at an earlier date”, Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., id. at
257, the text of SBJPA section 1605(d)(1) constitutes markedly
more than “the mere promulgation of an effective date”, INS v.
St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 317 (2001). SBJPA section 1605(d)(1) does
not just state when the law is to take effect. Rather, the
Page: Previous 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011