- 12 -
prescribed the temporal reach” of the section, and, “If Congress
has clearly expressed whether the statute should apply
retroactively, the inquiry ends.” Ojeda-Terrazas v. Ashcroft,
290 F.3d 292, 297 (5th Cir. 2002). For purposes of finding such
an unambiguous direction, the Supreme Court has further
explained: “‘[C]ases where this Court has found truly
“retroactive” effect adequately authorized by statute have
involved statutory language that was so clear that it could
sustain only one interpretation.’” INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289,
316-317 (2001) (quoting Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U.S. 320, 328 n.4
(1997)).
SBJPA section 1605, after setting forth in subsections (a)
through (c) the amending language to be codified as part of
section 104, provided as follows:
(d) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2),
the amendments made by this section shall apply to
amounts received after the date of the enactment of
this Act, in taxable years ending after such date.
(2) Exception.--The amendments made by this section
shall not apply to any amount received under a written
binding agreement, court decree, or mediation award in
effect on (or issued on or before) September 13, 1995.
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., supra
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011