M. Lee Gallenstein v. United States
70 A.F.T.R.2d (RIA) 5683, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 22062, 975 F.2d 286 (1992)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981, which amended I.R.C. § 2040(b)(2), did not expressly or impliedly repeal the effective date of the 1976 amendment to § 2040(b)(1). Therefore, for spousal joint property interests created before 1977, the original 'contribution rule' of § 2040(a) applies, not the 50% inclusion rule of § 2040(b).
Facts:
- On July 11, 1955, M. Lee Gallenstein and her husband purchased real property in Kentucky for $38,500.
- The entire purchase price was derived from her husband's earnings.
- The property was held as a joint tenancy with a right of survivorship.
- Gallenstein's husband died on December 12, 1987, at which point she became the sole owner of the property.
- On July 5, 1988, Gallenstein sold a portion of the farm property for $3,663,650.
Procedural Posture:
- M. Lee Gallenstein filed an amended federal income tax return for 1988, claiming a full step-up in basis for the farm property and seeking a refund of $115,152.
- The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) denied Gallenstein's second amended return and her claim for the full refund.
- Gallenstein filed a lawsuit against the United States in federal district court, seeking a refund of federal income taxes.
- The district court entered judgment in favor of Gallenstein, ruling that the pre-1977 contribution rule applied and she was entitled to a 100% step-up in basis.
- The United States (the government) appealed the district court's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981's amendment to I.R.C. § 2040(b)(2), which redefined 'qualified joint interest,' retroactively repeal the effective date of the 1976 amendment that established the 50% inclusion rule in § 2040(b)(1) for spousal joint interests created after December 31, 1976?
Opinions:
Majority - Suhrheinrich, Circuit Judge.
No. The 1981 amendment to I.R.C. § 2040(b)(2) did not repeal the effective date of the 1976 amendment, which limited the application of the 50% spousal inclusion rule to joint interests created after 1976. The court found no evidence of an express or implied repeal. An express repeal requires an overt statement by Congress, which is absent here; in fact, Congress's explicit repeal of other subsections demonstrates it knows how to repeal provisions when it so intends. The court reasoned that legislative history is irrelevant when a statute is unambiguous, and the effective date provision is clear on its face. Furthermore, there is no implied repeal because the statutes are not 'irreconcilably in conflict.' The 1976 effective date and the 1981 amendment can coexist: the old 'contribution rule' applies to pre-1977 spousal joint interests, while the 50% inclusion rule, as amended in 1981, applies to interests created after 1976 for decedents dying after 1981. The court has a duty to regard both statutes as effective if they are capable of coexistence.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that repeals by implication are heavily disfavored, requiring a clear and manifest congressional intent that is not present here. It carves out a significant, and likely unintended, tax benefit for a specific class of taxpayers: surviving spouses of pre-1977 joint tenancies where the decedent furnished all the consideration. By allowing 100% of the property's value to be included in the decedent's estate under the old 'contribution rule,' the survivor receives a full step-up in basis, thereby eliminating capital gains tax on appreciation that occurred during the decedent's life. The case serves as a key precedent on statutory interpretation within the complex Internal Revenue Code, emphasizing that courts should not use legislative history or inference to achieve a repeal that Congress did not explicitly enact.
