Therese Hahn v. Commissioner , 110 T.C. No. 14 ( 1998 )

110 T.C. No. 14UNITED STATES TAX COURT
THERESE HAHN, Petitioner v.
COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, Respondent
Docket No. 17210-96. Filed March 4, 1998.
P and her husband (H) purchased property in 1972
as joint tenants with right of survivorship. P became
the sole owner of the property upon H's death in 1991.
H's Federal Estate Tax Return reported 100 percent of
the date of death value of the property as H's interest
therein. P sold the property in 1993 and, pursuant to
secs. 2040(a) and 1014(b)(9), I.R.C., included 100
percent of the date of death value of the property in
calculating her basis. R determined that, because H
died after Dec. 31, 1981, pursuant to sec. 2040(b)(1),
I.R.C., only 50 percent of the date of death value of
the property was required to be included in H's gross
estate and, pursuant to sec. 1014(b)(9), I.R.C., P
should receive a step-up in basis for only 50 percent
of the value of the property.
Held: Amendment to definition of "qualified joint
interest" in sec. 2040(b)(2), I.R.C., did not expressly
or impliedly repeal effective date of 50-percent
inclusion rule of sec. 2040(b)(1), I.R.C., which
-2-
therefore does not apply to spousal joint interests
created before Jan. 1, 1977.
K. Bruce Friedman, for petitioner.
Laurel M. Robinson, for respondent.
OPINION
COHEN, Chief Judge: This case was assigned to Special Trial
Judge John F. Dean pursuant to section 7443A(b)(4) and Rules 180,
181, and 183.1 The Court agrees with and adopts the opinion of
the Special Trial Judge, which is set forth below.
OPINION OF THE SPECIAL TRIAL JUDGE
DEAN, Special Trial Judge: This case is before us on
petitioner's motion for summary judgment and respondent's cross-
motion for partial summary judgment. Respondent determined a
deficiency in petitioner's 1993 Federal income tax in the amount
of $50,123 and an accuracy-related penalty under section 6662(a)
in the amount of $10,025.
The issue for decision concerns petitioner's basis in
property which had been held by petitioner and her now-deceased
husband in joint tenancy with right of survivorship. To resolve
this issue, we must decide whether the 1981 amendment of the
definition of "qualified joint interest" in section 2040(b)(2)
1
Unless otherwise indicated, all section references are to
the Internal Revenue Code and all Rule references are to the Tax
Court Rules of Practice and Procedure.
-3-
expressly or impliedly repealed the effective date of section
2040(b)(1). Petitioner resided in Oakland, California, at the
time she filed her petition.
A motion for summary judgment is appropriate "if the
pleadings, answers to interrogatories, depositions, admissions,
and any other acceptable materials, together with the affidavits,
if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that a decision may be rendered as a matter of law."
Rule 121(b); Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, 98 T.C. 518, 520
(1992), affd. 17 F.3d 965 (7th Cir. 1994). The moving party
bears the burden of showing that there is no genuine issue of
material fact, and factual inferences are viewed in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. United States v. Diebold,
Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962); Preece v. Commissioner, 95 T.C.
594, 597 (1990).
The opposing party cannot rest upon mere allegations or
denials but must set forth specific facts showing there is a
genuine issue for trial. Rule 121(d). The existence of any
reasonable doubt as to the facts will result in denial of the
motion for summary judgment. Hoeme v. Commissioner, 63 T.C. 18,
20 (1974). We set forth a summary of facts relevant to our
discussion that do not appear to be in dispute; the facts are
stated solely for purposes of deciding the motions and are not
findings of fact for this case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a);
Sundstrand Corp. v. Commissioner, supra at 520.
-4-
Background
On June 8, 1972, John P. Hahn, petitioner's husband, signed
a subscription agreement to purchase shares in Fifty CPW Tenants
Corporation (CPW) for a purchase price of $44,000. On
February 15, 1973, 440 shares of CPW were issued to petitioner
and her husband as joint tenants with right of survivorship.
These shares were allocated to apartment 10C, located at 50
Central Park West, New York, New York.
On August 19, 1991, Mr. Hahn died, and petitioner became the
sole owner of the CPW shares. On July 8, 1993, the estate of
John P. Hahn filed a Federal Estate Tax Return reporting 100
percent of the value of the CPW shares on the date of Mr. Hahn's
death as the value of his interest in the shares. The value of
the shares on the date of Mr. Hahn's death was reported at
$700,000.
Petitioner sold the CPW shares on September 28, 1993. On a
Form 2119 (Sale of Your Home) attached to her 1993 Federal income
tax return, petitioner reported a selling price for the CPW
shares of $720,000 and a basis of $758,412.2 Accordingly,
petitioner reported no gain on the sale.
In a notice of deficiency issued June 17, 1996, respondent
determined, inter alia, that, pursuant to section 2040(b)(1),
2
On a statement attached to her return, petitioner
calculated her basis as follows: $700,000 date of death value,
$572 of transfer fees, $43,200 of commissions, $13,140 of
transfer taxes, and $1,500 for asbestos removal.
-5-
petitioner could receive a stepped-up basis for only 50 percent
of the date of death value of the CPW shares. Accordingly,
respondent determined that petitioner had a basis in the CPW
shares of $428,340, composed of the following amounts: One-half
of the original cost basis ($22,000), one-half of the date of
death value ($350,000), $43,200 of commissions, and $13,140 of
transfer taxes.3 From the $720,000 selling price, respondent
subtracted the $428,340 basis and allowed the section 121 one-
time exclusion of $125,000 of gain from the sale of a principal
residence to determine a gain on sale of $166,660.
Discussion
Petitioner argues that because the joint tenancy was created
prior to January 1, 1977, and because she provided no part of the
consideration for the purchase, the contribution rule of section
2040(a) is applicable and, consequently, under section 1014, she
is entitled to a stepped-up basis in 100 percent of the property.
Respondent argues that because petitioner's husband died after
1981, as a matter of law the 50-percent inclusion rule of section
2040(b)(1) is applicable and that petitioner is entitled to a
stepped-up basis under section 1014 in only 50 percent of the
property. Alternatively, respondent argues that if the
contribution rule of section 2040(a) is applicable, petitioner
3
Respondent did not include the $572 of transfer fees and
$1,500 for asbestos removal in petitioner's basis.
-6-
has not proven that her husband provided all of the consideration
used to purchase the property.
The only evidence petitioner has submitted concerning the
original consideration used to purchase the CPW shares is her
sworn affidavit that her husband provided the entire
consideration. Petitioner also notes that she and her husband
resided in New York, a noncommunity property State, at the time
of purchase. Assuming arguendo that the contribution rule of
section 2040(a) is applicable, we are still left with the
unresolved factual dispute as to the source of the consideration
used to purchase the shares. We do not resolve disagreements
over relevant factual issues in a summary judgment proceeding,
and, consequently, petitioner's motion for summary judgment is
denied. See Espinoza v. Commissioner, 78 T.C. 412, 416 (1982);
Hoeme v. Commissioner, supra at 20.
Respondent's motion, however, does not implicate any factual
issues. Respondent argues that, pursuant to section 2040(b),
petitioner is entitled to a stepped-up basis in only 50 percent
of the CPW shares, regardless of whether petitioner or her
husband furnished the consideration for the purchase.
Accordingly, a decision on respondent's motion may be rendered as
a matter of law.
Section 1001 governs the determination of gains and losses
on the disposition of property. Commissioner v. Tufts, 461 U.S.
300, 304 (1983). Generally, gain or loss from the disposition of
-7-
property is measured by the amount realized less the adjusted
basis of the property. Sec. 1001(a).4 Section 1014 generally
provides that the basis of property acquired from a decedent is
the fair market value of the property at the date of the
decedent's death or on the alternate valuation date. Sec.
1014(a). A surviving joint tenant, however, is considered to
have acquired property from the decedent only to the extent that
the property was required to be included in the estate of the
deceased joint tenant. Sec. 1014(b)(9). Correspondingly, the
portion of the property not included in the decedent's estate
retains the survivor's adjusted basis. Thus, determination of
petitioner's basis in the CPW shares hinges on the portion of the
property required to be included in her husband's estate.
Section 2040 governs the value of jointly-owned property to
be included in a decedent's estate. Before 1977, section 20405
4
Losses attributable to the sale of a family residence,
however, are nondeductible personal losses. Sec. 262; Austin v.
Commissioner, 35 T.C. 221 (1960), affd. 298 F.2d 583 (2d Cir.
1962); Doerries v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1991-396; sec. 1.262-
1(b)(4), Income Tax Regs.
5
Sec. 2040 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provided:
SEC. 2040. JOINT INTERESTS.
The value of the gross estate shall include the
value of all property (except real property situated
outside of the United States) to the extent of the
interest therein held as joint tenants by the decedent
and any other person, or as tenants by the entirety by
the decedent and spouse, or deposited, with any person
carrying on the banking business, in their joint names
and payable to either or the survivor, except such part
(continued...)
-8-
provided that the gross estate includes the value of all property
held at the time of a decedent's death by the decedent and
another person in a joint tenancy or tenancy by the entirety,
except such part of the entire value that is attributable to the
amount of consideration in money or money's worth furnished by
such other person. Thus, the rule established a "contribution
test", whereby the estate of the deceased joint tenant must
generally include the value of the entire property less the
portion of the property attributable to the consideration
furnished by the surviving joint tenant. The statute creates a
rebuttable presumption that the value of the entire property is
includable in the deceased joint tenant's estate, and the burden
5
(...continued)
thereof as may be shown to have originally belonged to
such other person and never to have been received or
acquired by the latter from the decedent for less than
an adequate and full consideration in money or money's
worth: Provided, That where such property or any part
thereof, or part of the consideration with which such
property was acquired, is shown to have been at any
time acquired by such other person from the decedent
for less than an adequate and full consideration in
money or money's worth, there shall be excepted only
such part of the value of such property as is
proportionate to the consideration furnished by such
other person: Provided further, That where any
property has been acquired by gift, bequest, devise, or
inheritance, as a tenancy by the entirety by the
decedent and spouse, then to the extent of one-half of
the value thereof, or, where so acquired by the
decedent and any other person as joint tenants and
their interests are not otherwise specified or fixed by
law, then to the extent of the value of a fractional
part to be determined by dividing the value of the
property by the number of joint tenants.
-9-
of showing original ownership or contribution to the purchase
price by the surviving joint tenant falls upon the estate.
Estate of Heidt v. Commissioner, 8 T.C. 969 (1947), affd. per
curiam 170 F.2d 1021 (9th Cir. 1948); Estate of Balazs v.
Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1981-423, affd. without published
opinion 693 F.2d 134 (11th Cir. 1982).
-10-
In 1976, subsection (b) of section 2040 was added to the
Code by section 2002(c)(1) of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA
76), Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520, 1855.6 The 1976 amendment
created a special rule where the joint tenants were husband and
wife. If the interest was a "qualified joint interest",7 only
one-half of the value of the property owned in joint tenancy was
includable in the decedent's gross estate, without regard to
6
As enacted in 1976 sec. 2040(b) read:
(b) Certain Joint Interests of Husband and Wife.--
(1) Interests of spouse excluded from gross
estate.-- Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case
of any qualified joint interest, the value included in
the gross estate with respect to such interest by
reason of this section is one-half of the value of such
qualified joint interest.
(2) Qualified joint interest defined.--For
purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified joint
interest" means any interest in property held by the
decedent and the decedent's spouse as joint tenants or
as tenants by the entirety, but only if--
(A) such joint interest was created by the
decedent, the decedent's spouse, or both,
(B)(i) in the case of personal property, the
creation of such joint interest constituted in
whole or in part a gift for purposes of chapter
12, or
(ii) in the case of real property, an
election under section 2515 applies with
respect to the creation of such joint
interest, and
(C) in the case of a joint tenancy, only the
decedent and the decedent's spouse are joint
tenants.
7
A "qualified joint interest" was defined as a joint tenancy
between husband and wife, or a tenancy by the entirety, where (1)
such interest was created by the decedent, the decedent's spouse,
or both, and (2) the creation of the joint interest must have
been a gift subject to Federal gift tax.
-11-
which spouse furnished the consideration to acquire the jointly
held property.8 TRA 76 sec. 2002(d)(3), 90 Stat. 1856, provided
an effective date for the new 50-percent inclusion rule of
section 2040(b), making it applicable to "joint interests created
after December 31, 1976."9
Congress amended section 2040 again in 1978, with the
addition of subsections (c), (d), and (e). Revenue Act of 1978,
Pub. L. 95-600, secs. 511(a) and 702(k)(2), 92 Stat. 2763, 2881,
2932. Essentially, these subsections provided a mechanism
whereby an election could be made to treat joint interests
created prior to 1977 as "qualified joint interests" subject to
the 50-percent inclusion rule of section 2040(b).10
8
By way of a "clerical amendment", sec. 2002(c)(3) of the
Tax Reform Act of 1976 (TRA 76), Pub. L. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520,
1856, redesignated the original sec. 2040 as new subsection
2040(a), making it the general inclusion rule for all joint
interests other than "qualified joint interests".
9
Although the effective date was not codified in the U.S.
Code, it was enacted as a section of the public law that was
subsequently codified at sec. 2040 and, accordingly, has the
force of law. See Patten v. United States, 116 F.3d 1029, 1033
n.3 (4th Cir. 1997).
10
Sec. 2040(c) provided for an election to exclude a portion
of the value of jointly owned property used for farming or any
other trade or business based on the material participation of
the decedent's spouse in the activity. Sec. 2040(d) provided an
election to treat joint interests created before 1977 as
"qualified joint interests". Instead of severing and re-creating
the pre-1977 joint interest, a husband and wife could file a gift
tax return reporting a "deemed" gift (resulting from a "deemed"
severance and re-creation of the joint interest). Finally, sec.
2040(e) provided that if a pre-1977 joint interest was actually
severed and re-created by deed, it would nonetheless not be
(continued...)
-12-
The final relevant amendment to section 2040 took place in
1981. Subsections (c), (d), and (e), which had been adopted in
1978, were repealed. Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (ERTA),
sec. 403(c)(3), Pub. L. 97-34, 95 Stat. 172, 302. The definition
of a "qualified joint interest" in section 2040(b)(2) was
redefined to eliminate the requirement that the creation (or re-
creation) of the joint interest be treated as a gift.11 ERTA
sec. 403(c)(1), 95 Stat. 301-302. However, the operational
provision of section 2040(b)(1), providing for 50 percent
inclusion, was not changed. The effective date provision of the
1981 amendment made these changes applicable "to the estates of
decedents dying after December 31, 1981." ERTA sec. 403(e)(1),
95 Stat. 305.
The issue we face, then, is whether section 2040(b)(1)
applies to joint interests created before January 1, 1977, where
the deceased joint tenant died after December 31, 1981.
10
(...continued)
treated as a "qualified joint interest" unless an election under
subsection (d) was made.
11
As enacted in 1981, sec. 2040(b)(2) provided:
(2) Qualified joint interest defined.--For purposes of
paragraph (1), the term "qualified joint interest" means any
interest in property held by the decedent and the decedent's
spouse as--
(A) tenants by the entirety, or
(B) joint tenants with right of survivorship, but
only if the decedent and the spouse of the decedent are
the only joint tenants.
-13-
Before 1977, section 2040 merely provided for a contribution
rule to determine inclusion in the gross estate of a joint
tenant. The 1976 amendment provided in section 2040(b)(1) for a
50-percent inclusion rule for "qualified joint interests" (as
defined in section 2040(b)(2)), with the new rule being
applicable to "joint interests created after December 31, 1976."
Joint interests created before January 1, 1977, were still
subject to the contribution rule of section 2040(a). In 1981,
the definition of a "qualified joint interest" contained in
section 2040(b)(2) was changed, effective for "the estates of
decedents dying after December 31, 1981." The effective date of
the operational provision of section 2040(b)(1), however, was not
changed. The question is whether the 1981 amendment to the
definition of "qualified joint interests" in section 2040(b)(2)
somehow modified the effective date provision of section
2040(b)(1).
This issue was addressed in Gallenstein v. United States,
975 F.2d 286 (6th Cir. 1992). That case involved the same
relevant facts and the identical legal issue, namely, the income
tax basis of property held in joint tenancy with right of
survivorship upon the death of the taxpayer's spouse. In 1955,
Mrs. Gallenstein and her husband purchased real property as joint
tenants with right of survivorship. The entire purchase price
derived from Mr. Gallenstein's earnings. Upon her husband's
death in 1987, Mrs. Gallenstein became the sole owner of the
-14-
property. Approximately 7 months later, she then sold the
property, which had appreciated substantially since its purchase
in 1955. Eventually, on a second amended Federal income tax
return for 1988, Mrs. Gallenstein reported 100 percent of the
date of death value of the property as her basis, resulting in no
capital gain upon its sale.
In opposing her refund suit, the Government argued, as here,
that, pursuant to section 2040(b)(1), Mrs. Gallenstein could
receive a stepped-up basis for only 50 percent of the property.
The Government asserted that the 1981 amendment of the definition
of "qualified joint interests" in section 2040(b)(2) operated to
repeal the effective date of section 2040(b)(1), and therefore
the 50-percent inclusion rule was applicable to Mr. Gallenstein's
estate because he died after December 31, 1981. The Government
pursued this claim along both an express and an implied repeal
theory.
The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit concluded that
the 1981 amendment to paragraph (2) of section 2040(b) did not
act to repeal the effective date of the 1976 amendment creating
"qualified joint interests", and therefore affirmed summary
judgment in favor of Mrs. Gallenstein. The court rejected the
Government's claim that section 2040(b)(2) expressly repealed the
effective date of section 2040(b)(1) by changing the definition
of "qualified joint interests." The court reasoned that an
express repeal can only be found where a subsequent statute
-15-
expressly states that it repeals a portion of the former statute.
The express repeal of subsections (c), (d), and (e) of section
2040 by the 1981 amendment was deemed persuasive evidence that
Congress did not also intend to repeal subsection (b)(1).
Next, the Court of Appeals concluded that there had been no
implied repeal of the effective date of section 2040(b)(1). It
reasoned that, lacking any evidence showing an affirmative
intention to repeal, an implied repeal can only be found where
two acts are in irreconcilable conflict or where a subsequent act
covers the whole subject of an earlier act. In the court's view,
the two acts here peacefully coexist, as section 2040(b)(1)
applies to a "qualified joint interest" created after 1976, while
section 2040(b)(2) merely redefines a "qualified joint interest"
for estates of decedents dying after 1981.
Furthermore, the court reasoned that because the two
statutes here are not mutually exclusive, it could not be
concluded that the later statute fills the entire area of law,
thereby rendering the prior statute ineffective. The court
dismissed as irrelevant the Government's extensive discussion of
legislative history, finding Congress' failure to change section
2040(b)(1)'s effective date dispositive of the case. The Court
of Appeals' analysis rejecting both express and implied repeal
has since been followed by every other court that has examined
this issue. See Patten v. United States, 116 F.3d 1029 (4th Cir.
1997); Baszto v. United States, 80 AFTR 2d 97-7740 (M.D. Fla.
-16-
1997); Wilburn v. United States, 80 AFTR 2d 97-7553, 97-2 USTC
par. 50,881 (D. Md. 1997); Anderson v. United States, 78 AFTR 2d
96-6555, 96-2 USTC par. 60,235 (D. Md. 1996).
Express Repeal
Here, respondent begins by pursuing an express repeal
argument. Respondent argues that because section 2040(b)(1) and
(b)(2) are "interdependent", the alteration of subsection (b)(2)
in 1981 operated to expressly repeal the effective date of
subsection (b)(1). Yet respondent points to no language from the
1981 amendment that specifically repeals the effective date of
subsection (b)(1), and indeed there is none. See Patten v.
United States, supra at 1033-1034 ("Because the text of the 1981
Amendment does not mention the effective date of the 1976
Amendment, there has been no express repeal."); Gallenstein v.
United States, supra at 290 ("An express repeal requires that
Congress overtly state with specificity that the subsequent
statute repeals a portion of the former statute."). We therefore
reject respondent's express repeal argument.
Implied Repeal
Respondent next argues that there has been an implied repeal
of the effective date of section 2040(b)(1). According to
respondent, when Congress amended subsection (b)(2) it also
directly changed subsection (b)(1). Subsection (b)(1) no longer
applied as before because it now applied to a "qualified joint
interest", as defined in the amended subsection (b)(2).
-17-
Accordingly, the argument goes, the entire section 2040(b) was
changed by the 1981 amendment.
"It is, of course, a cardinal principle of statutory
construction that repeals by implication are not favored."
United States v. United Continental Tuna Corp., 425 U.S. 164, 168
(1976). Nonetheless, an implied repeal may be found in certain
limited circumstances:
(1) Where provisions in the two acts are in
irreconcilable conflict, the later act to the extent of
the conflict constitutes an implied repeal of the
earlier one; and (2) if the later act covers the whole
subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a
substitute, it will operate similarly as a repeal of
the earlier act. But, in either case, the intention of
the legislature to repeal must be clear and manifest.
* * * [Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co., 426 U.S. 148,
154 (1976) (quoting Posadas v. National City Bank, 296
U.S. 497, 503 (1936)).]
1. No Irreconcilable Conflict
Respondent argues that the statutory provisions in issue
here are irreconcilably in conflict because under the 1981
amendment the point in time that a joint interest was created is
irrelevant, whereas the 1976 amendment applied only to "qualified
joint interests" created after December 31, 1976. Respondent
asserts that under the 1981 amendment, Congress "created a
single, simple rule of universal application and consistent
results".
Statutory provisions, however, are not irreconcilably in
conflict unless there is a positive repugnancy between them or
-18-
they cannot mutually coexist. Id. at 155. The statutory
provisions here are not so irreconcilable. "[Section] 2040(b)(1)
applies to a qualified joint interest created after 1976, and
* * * [section] 2040(b)(2) redefines a qualified joint interest
for estates of decedents dying after 1981." Gallenstein v.
United States, 975 F.2d at 291; see also Patten v. United States,
supra at 1035 ("[Section 2040(b)(1)] could easily be read to
apply to a qualified joint interest created after December 31,
1976. For decedents dying before January 1, 1982, the old
definition of qualified joint interest applies, while for
decedents dying after December 31, 1981, the current definition
applies.").
2. Later Act Does Not Cover Whole Subject
Moreover, it cannot be said that "the later act covers the
whole subject of the earlier one and is clearly intended as a
substitute". It is clear that this was not a comprehensive
revision of the estate tax treatment of joint interests, designed
to totally displace all prior enactments. Rather, the 1981
amendment merely changed the definition of "qualified joint
interests" contained in section 2040(b)(2) without amending the
operational rule of section 2040(b)(1). The 1981 amendment
cannot stand by itself, as it merely redefines "qualified joint
interests" and is incomplete without the operative inclusion
rules provided in section 2040(a) and (b)(1). Respondent would
have us repeal only the effective date of subsection (b)(1) while
-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
-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
12
Even 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).
-21-
situation. For estate tax purposes, section 2040(a) does raise a
rebuttable presumption that the decedent furnished the entire
consideration for the jointly held property. For income tax
purposes, however, section 1014(b)(9) allows a step-up in basis
only for property "required to be included" in the decedent's
gross estate. Thus, in the income tax setting, which we have
here, the burden of proof is on the taxpayer, who must prove that
the decedent furnished the consideration for the jointly held
property in order to receive a step-up in basis. Madden v.
Commissioner, 52 T.C. 845 (1969), affd. 440 F.2d 784 (7th Cir.
1971) (taxpayer cannot elect whether or not to include jointly
owned property in an estate by simply failing to meet the burden
of proof in order to receive a step-up in basis for income tax
purposes).
c. Express Repeal of Subsections (c), (d), and (e)
Finally, respondent fails to address the most important
indication of congressional intent concerning the implied repeal
issue. In addition to modifying the definition of "qualified
joint interests" in section 2040(b)(2), the 1981 amendment
expressly repealed subsections (c), (d), and (e), which had been
adopted in 1978. ERTA sec. 403(c)(3), 95 Stat. 302.
Consequently, we are particularly loath to find an implied repeal
of the effective date of subsection (b)(1) given the existence of
-22-
an express repeal in the same legislation. See Gallenstein v.
United States, 975 F.2d at 291 ("When Congress wanted to repeal a
particular section of the estate tax code, it did so
expressly."); see also West Va. Univ. Hosps., Inc. v. Casey, 499
U.S. 83, 98 (1991) ("the purpose of a statute includes not only
what it sets out to change, but also what it resolves to leave
alone.").
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we hold that the "new" definition
of "qualified joint interests" in section 2040(b)(2) did not
expressly or impliedly repeal the effective date of section
2040(b)(1). Thus, section 2040(b)(1) does not apply to spousal
joint interests created before January 1, 1977. Accordingly,
respondent's motion for partial summary judgment will also be
denied.
To reflect the foregoing,
Appropriate orders
will be issued.