United States v. Irvine (92-1546), 511 U.S. 224 (1994).
Opinion
[ Souter ]
Concurrence
[ Scalia ]
Syllabus
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version
HTML version
WordPerfect version

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 92-1546


UNITED STATES, PETITIONER v. JOHN O. IRVINE and FIRST TRUST NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

on writ of certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the eighth circuit

[April 20, 1994]

Justice Scalia , concurring in part and concurring in The justification for the "reasonable time" limitation must, as always, be a textual one. It consists, in my view, of the fact that the failure to make a reasonably prompt disclaimer of a known bequest is an implicit acceptance. Qui tacet, consentire videtur. Thus, a laterdisclaimer, which causes the property to go to someone else by operation of law, is effectively a transfer to that someone else. (The implication from nondisclaimer is much weaker when the interest is a contingent one, but Jewett v. Commissioner, 455 U.S. 305 (1982), resolved that issue--perhaps incorrectly.) While state disclaimer laws have chosen to override the reasonable implication of nondisclaimer, the Treasury Department regulations correctly (or at least permissibly) conclude that the federal Gift Tax does not.