- 17 -
legislative history is sparse. What history there is recognizes
two purposes: to “‘avoid the possibility of the Veterans’
Administration * * * being placed in the position of a collection
agency’” and to “‘prevent the deprivation and depletion of the
means of subsistence of veterans dependent upon these benefits as
the main source of their income.’” Rose v. Rose, 481 U.S. 619,
630 (1987) (addressing the assignability limitations of the
provision and quoting S. Rept. 94-1243, at 147-148 (1976),
reprinted in 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5241, 5369, 5370). While the
second of those purposes is somewhat helpful to petitioner, we do
not believe that the legislative history of 38 U.S.C. section
5301 (2000) resolves the question before us.
We proceed to consider what we can determine about section
1718. In comparison to the legislative history of 38 U.S.C.
5(...continued)
enlarged to include all allotments and family allowances,
compensation, and insurance payable under the Act. See Act of
June 25, 1918, ch. 104, sec. 2, 40 Stat. 609. That exemption
subsequently became sec. 22 of the World War Veterans’ Act, 1924,
ch. 320, 43 Stat. 607, 613, which consolidated several different
veterans’ benefits laws into a single statute. Ch. 320, sec. 22,
43 Stat. 613, however, was repealed in 1935, and in its place
Congress enacted a new statute providing a broad tax exemption
for benefits payable “under any of the laws relating to
veterans.” See Act of Aug. 12, 1935, ch. 510, sec. 3, 49 Stat.
609. That provision was codified in 38 U.S.C. sec. 3101(a)
(1958), the predecessor statute to 38 U.S.C. sec. 5301(a)(1)
(2000). See Manocchio v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 989, 996 (1982)
(setting forth the history of the exemption through its
appearance in 38 U.S.C. sec. 3101(a) (1958)), affd. 710 F.2d 1400
(9th Cir. 1983).
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 10, 2007