Opinion ID: 2966691
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Reliance on a Functional Analysis

Text: The Government next argues that because § 2040(b)(1) is the operational paragraph and § 2040(b)(2) is the definitional paragraph, a change in the effective date of § 2040(b)(2) necessarily changed the 10 effective date of § 2040(b)(1). That is, [w]hen Congress amended paragraph (b)(2) in 1981 to change the definition of a `qualified joint interest,' it directly changed the application of paragraph (b)(1). (Appellant's Br. at 23.) Because of this direct change in the application of § 2040(b)(1), argues the Government, it was unnecessary to also change the effective date. Putting aside the fact that the Government has yet to address the predicate conditions -- either an irreconcilable conflict or that § 2040(b)(2) covers the whole subject -- this argument is logically flawed. Changing the effective date of a definitional paragraph has no direct effect on the operational paragraph. Instead, the operational paragraph 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. Although the converse is perhaps true -- changing the effective date of an operational paragraph would arguably affect the effective date of the definitional paragraph -- the situation here is reversed, and the Government has failed to prove its theory.