Time for the Supreme Court to Step In?: Sixth Circuit Denies Petition for Rehearing in CIC Services v IRS

Last month the Sixth Circuit declined to grant a petition for rehearing en banc in the case of CIC Services v IRS. The case, which I discussed following the original panel decision in In CIC Sixth Circuit Sides With IRS in Major Anti Injunction Act Case, involves the reach of the Anti Injunction Act (AIA). But the frank concurring opinions and the dissent accompanying the denial of the en banc petition reveal differing views on the role of the modern administrative state and how tax administration fits in with broader administrative law norms. At issue is when taxpayers or advisors can challenge tax rules: the AIA has pushed challenges to issues like IRS compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking requirements (including whether the rule was issued under the APA’s notice and comment regime) to deficiency cases or refund proceedings. 

read more...

CIC highlights some differences between the IRS and other federal agencies. First, tax practitioners and the IRS itself refer to regulations as guidance. IRS treats certain non-regulatory guidance published in its Internal Revenue Bulletin, including the Notice in the case at issue, as binding on the IRS (and for that matter taxpayers can rely on it). Other agencies distinguish between regulations and guidance, with those agencies treating regulations as binding but guidance as not.  In addition, other agencies generally expect that they will face pre-enforcement judicial challenges to the regulations that they issue. In contrast, pre-enforcement challenges to tax regulations or other binding IRS guidance are unusual, in large part because the AIA prevents suits to restrain the assessment or collection of tax.

So, tax administration rests somewhat uneasily within the broader framework of administrative law. To recap, the AIA generally pushes challenges to IRS rulemaking to traditional tax controversy venues, that is in Tax Court in deficiency cases (if the tax or penalty is subject to deficiency procedures) or federal courts in refund matters after having to fully pay and comply with the Flora full payment rule. Many other agencies gear up for challenges immediately after they promulgate binding rules rather than having to wait for enforcement proceedings. 

All of this comes into sharp focus in CIC. The IRS issued informal guidance (a Notice) without going through APA notice and comment. The Notice imposed additional reporting obligations on captive insurance companies and their advisors. Failure to comply with the requirements could trigger substantial civil penalties that are not subject to deficiency procedures. Failing to comply with the reporting theoretically could result in criminal sanctions for willful noncompliance. CIC, a manager of captive insurance companies, and an individual who also managed captives and provides tax advice to them, sued. They claimed that the Notice imposed substantial costs and that the IRS effectively promulgated legislative rules without complying with the APA’s notice and comment requirements. The plaintiffs sought to enjoin the IRS from enforcing the Notice and asked the district court to issue a declaratory judgment claiming that the notice was invalid.

The district court dismissed the suit, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. That led to the petition for rehearing and last month’s brief but telling order accompanied by two concurring opinions and a dissent. In rejecting the petition for rehearing, one of the concurring opinions (authored by Judge Clay, who wrote the majority Sixth Circuit opinion), largely stuck to his guns and framed the issue as one that is covered by existing AIA precedent:

A suit seeking to preemptively challenge the regulatory aspect of a regulatory tax “necessarily” also seeks to preemptively challenge the tax aspect of a regulatory tax because invalidating the former would necessarily also invalidate the latter. Bob Jones Univ.,; see also NFIB, (“The present challenge to the mandate thus seeks to restrain the penalty’s future collection.” (emphasis added)). Otherwise, a taxpayer could simply “characterize” a challenge to a regulatory tax as a challenge to only the regulatory aspect of the tax and thereby evade the AIA. Fla. Bankers,. And “as the Supreme Court has explained time and again . . . the [AIA] is more than a pleading exercise.” see also RYO Machine, LLC v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, (6th Cir. 2012) (“Regardless of how the claim is labeled, the effect of an injunction here is to interfere with the assessment or collection of a tax. The plaintiff is not free to define the relief it seeks in terms permitted by the [AIA] while ignoring the ultimate deleterious effect such relief would have on the Government’s taxing ability.” (quotation and many citations omitted)).

Judge Sutton also concurred in the opinion denying the petition but his concurrence has a different flavor altogether.

(As an aside, this summer  I listened to the very entertaining Malcom Gladwell podcast Revisionist History. Season 4 Episode 1 (Puzzle Rush) and Episode 2 (The Tortoise and the Hare) feature Judge Sutton as one of the protagonists in Gladwell’s take down of the LSAT and the metrics for deciding who should gain entry into the nation’s elite law schools. Spoiler: Judge Sutton, who clerked for the late Justice Scalia and who attended the very respectable but not top five Moritz College of Law at THE Ohio State University is Gladwell’s poster child for why the LSAT and for that matter the way most law schools test students are in need of a major makeover).  

For one thing, Judge Sutton states that he agrees with the dissent’s view on the merits of whether the AIA prevents the courts from hearing the challenge to the Notice. Yet, Judge Sutton still believes that the case was not appropriate for an en banc hearing. His reason is that the Supreme Court, rather than the entire Sixth Circuit, should step in: 

[T] his case does not come to us on a fresh slate. Whatever we might do with the issue as an original matter is not the key question. As second-tier judges in a three-tier court system, our task is to figure out what the Supreme Court’s precedents mean in this setting. That is not easy because none of the Court’s precedents is precisely on point and because language from these one-off decisions leans in different directions.

Judge Sutton notes that the views are fairly well drawn on the issue—between the dissent in the panel opinion and the dissent in the denial of the petition by Judge Thapar, as well as the Florida Bankers DC Circuit opinion (authored by now Justice Kavanaugh) there is enough fodder for the Supreme Court to put together the seemingly (although not necessarily) contradictory approaches in the Direct Marketing and circuit court precedent on the reach of the AIA:

The last consideration is that we are not alone. The key complexity in this case—how to interpret Supreme Court decisions interpreting the statute—poses fewer difficulties for the Supreme Court than it does for us. In a dispute in which the Court’s decisions plausibly point in opposite directions, it’s worth asking what value we would add to the mix by en-bancing the case in order to create the very thing that generally prompts more review: a circuit split. As is, we have Judge Thapar’s dissental and Judge Nalbandian’s dissent at the panel stage on one side and Judge Clay’s opinion for the court on the other. These three opinions together with then-Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion say all there is to say about the issue from a lower court judge’s perspective. All of this leaves the Supreme Court in a well-informed position to resolve the point by action or inaction—either by granting review and reversing or by leaving the circuit court decisions in place.

The final part of the denial is Judge Thapar’s stinging dissent. Taking up the mantle of Judge Nalbandian’s dissent in the Sixth Circuit panel opinion, Judge Thapar discusses the differing legal takes on the reach of the AIA (and whether challenges to reporting requirements that are backstopped by penalties really count as a challenge to a tax rather than a challenge to the reporting requirement), but he also ups the rhetoric around how the majority approach to the AIA is out of sorts with broader principles of fairness. He warns of the parade of horribles associated with unchecked IRS power and a read of the AIA that requires parties to violate tax rules (and possibly have to go to jail) to get their day in court. For good measure, he points to how the IRS (at Congress’ direction) has taken on a more expansive role in society beyond collecting revenues.  This mission creep of the IRS makes the exceptional approach to the timing of when agency guidance is subject to challenge less justifiable. Absence of a right to pre-enforcement challenge, according to Judge Thapar, is inconsistent with principles of our constitutional system of checks and balances:

The Founders gave Congress the “Power To lay and collect Taxes.” U.S. Const. art. I , § 8 , cl. 1. They limited this power to Congress because they understood full well that “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.” M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 ,431 (1819) (Marshall, C.J.). But today, the IRS (an executive agency) exercises the power to tax and to destroy, in ways that the Founders never would have envisioned. E.g., In re United States ( NorCal Tea Party Patriots ), 817 F.3d 953 (6th Cir. 2016). Courts accepted this departure from constitutional principle on the promise that Congress would still constrain agency power through statutes like the Administrative Procedure Act. 5 U.S.C. § 500 et seq. We now see what many feared: that promise is often illusory.
 

Conclusion

Underlying the technical legal issues surrounding the reach of the AIA are fundamental policy questions concerning the power that the IRS has to issue guidance that is effectively and at times practically absent from meaningful court review. There are many good reasons for rethinking the path that requires taxpayers to not comply before having an institutional check on the IRS’s fidelity to the APA—especially if the challenged tax or penalty is not subject to deficiency procedures. As Judge Clay notes in his opinion affirming the denial of the petition, these policy questions raise issues that seem to call for a legislative fix. I discussed the need for possible legislation in a post earlier this year in the post Is it Time to Reconsider When IRS Guidance is Subject to Court Review?  In the absence of legislation, the opinions accompanying the denial of the request for en banc provide a strong signal that this issue is headed to the Supreme Court. CIC may be the vehicle that gets it there.

Supreme Court Reaffirms that Agencies Are Not Entitled to Chevron Deference on Their Interpretations of Judicial Review Issues

There have been occasions over the years where I have seen Collection Due Process or innocent spouse regulations place indirect limits on what the Tax Court may do.  For example, under section 6015(g)(3), refunds can be awarded as part of relief under subsections (b) and (f), but not (c).  Regulation § 1.6015-4 further provides that subsection (f) (which applies when relief is not available under subsections (b) or (c)) may not be used to circumvent the limitation of subsection (g)(3) of no refunds under (c):  “Therefore, relief is not available under [subsection (f)] to obtain a refund of liabilities paid for which the requesting spouse would otherwise qualify for relief under [subsection (c)].”  These are indirect limits on the Tax Court’s power, since they initially only limit what the IRS may do by way of awarding a refund under subsection (f).  But, I have wondered about whether such regulations deserve Chevron deference because they also impinge on the Tax Court’s powers.  In an amicus brief that Keith and I filed in a case challenging this particular regulation (but where the Court ultimately ruled so that it did not have to reach the regulation validity issue), we argued that Chevron deference should not be given to it – pointing to Supreme Court authority saying that deference is not owed to agency views as to judicial review matters.

I am still not sure that I am right as to no Chevron deference to such indirect limitations, but the Supreme Court recently decided a case, Smith v. Berryhill, 587 U. S. __ (2019) (May 28, 2019), where it repeated the rule that agencies are not entitled to Chevron deference as to their views on judicial review.  Because many are not familiar with this exception to Chevron deference, I thought it would be useful to quote what the Court said in this recent case.  

read more...

The issue in the case was whether certain Social Security disability benefits rulings are subject to judicial review.  The rulings were those of an internal Appeals Council, holding that benefits applicant Mr. Smith’s appeal to that Council was untimely.  The Council rulings were made after a full hearing on the merits before an administrative law judge. Mr. Smith then sued for judicial review, and lost at both the district court and the court of appeals. 

In the Supreme Court, the government reversed its prior position and agreed that claimant Smith was entitled to judicial review of the Appeals Council’s determination regarding the timeliness of his administrative appeal. The Court appointed an amicus to argue the government’s prior position – that the rulings were not “final” under the Social Security Act, and therefore not subject to judicial review. In its argument, the amicus contended that the Court should give Chevron deference to the position of the agency (prior to its switch in the case) that these rulings were not “final” agency decisions.  Rejecting Chevron deference to this prior regulatory interpretation, the Court wrote:

Chevron deference “‘is premised on the theory that a statute’s ambiguity constitutes an implicit delegation from Congress to the agency to fill in the statutory gaps.’” King v. Burwell, 576 U. S. ___, ___ (2015) (slip op., at 8). The scope of judicial review, meanwhile, is hardly the kind of question that the Court presumes that Congress implicitly delegated to an agency.

Indeed, roughly six years after Chevron was decided, the Court declined to give Chevron deference to the Secretary of Labor’s interpretation of a federal statute that would have foreclosed private rights of action under certain circumstances. See Adams Fruit Co. v. Barrett, 494 U. S. 638, 649–650 (1990). As the Court explained, Congress’ having created “a role for the Department of Labor in administering the statute” did “not empower the Secretary to regulate the scope of the judicial power vested by the statute.” Id., at 650. Rather, “[a]lthough agency determinations within the scope of delegated authority are entitled to deference, it is fundamental ‘that an agency may not bootstrap itself into an area in which it has no jurisdiction.’” Ibid. Here, too, while Congress has empowered the SSA to create a scheme of administrative exhaustion, see Sims, 530 U. S., at 106, Congress did not delegate to the SSA the power to determine “the scope of the judicial power vested by” §405(g) or to determine conclusively when its dictates are satisfied. Adams Fruit Co., 494 U. S., at 650. Consequently, having concluded that Smith and the Government have the better reading of §405(g), we need go no further.


Slip op. at 14.

Of course, some justices on the Supreme Court currently think that Chevron deference should be abandoned entirely.  But, until it is (if ever), tax practitioners may consider whether to raise this exception to Chevron when litigating the validity of regulations that directly or indirectly impinge on the Tax Court’s powers.

AJAC and the APA, Designated Orders 4/8/2019 – 4/12/19

Did the Appeals’ Judicial Approach and Culture (AJAC) Project turn conversations with Appeals into adjudications governed by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and subject to judicial review by the Tax Court? A petitioner in a designated order during the week of April 8, 2019 (Docket No. 18021-13, EZ Lube v. CIR (order here)) thinks so and Tax Court finds itself addressing its relationship with the APA yet again.

read more...

I spent time reviewing the history of the APA’s relationship with the IRS as well as the somewhat recent Tax Court cases that have addressed it (including Ax and Altera). The argument put forth by petitioner in this designated order appears to be novel – but ultimately the Tax Court’s response is similar to its holding in Ax, with perhaps even more insistence on the Tax Court’s jurisdictional limitations.  

Most recently, the Ninth Circuit withdrew its decision in the appeal of Altera, and we wait to see if it decides again to overturn the Tax Court’s decision which held that the IRS violated the APA when issuing regulations under section 482. For the most recent PT update on the case, see Stu Bassin’s post here.

The case in which this order was designated is also appealable to the Ninth Circuit. Is petitioner teeing up another APA argument before the Ninth Circuit depending on what happens in Altera? That’s a stretch – since petitioner is asking the Court to treat a phone call with Appeals as a adjudication – but it is possible that something more is going on than what is conveyed in the order.

First, let me provide some background: Petitioner is an LLC taxed as TEFRA partnership; it filed bankruptcy in 2008 but then reorganized. Part of the reorganization involved the conversion of debt that Goldman Sachs (or entities controlled by it) had in the old partnership into a controlling equity interest in the new partnership.  After the reorganization, the partnership filed tax returns taking the position that the partnership was terminated on the date of the reorganization because more than 50% of the partnership interests had been ousted through what was in substance a foreclosure of the old partners’ interests. Accordingly, the old partners treated the reorganization as a deemed sale of their property and reported $22 million in gain.

Then, in 2011, reorganized EZ Lube filed an Administrative Adjustment Request (AAR) taking a position contrary to the former partners’ previously filed returns. The position taken in the AAR was that the partnership was not technically terminated, and instead the exchange of debt for equity created $80 million in cancelled debt income.

The IRS agreed with the AAR and issued a final partnership administrative adjustment (FPAA) reflecting that the partners’ originally filed returns were wrong. But one of the former partners liked the old characterization so in response to the FPAA, he petitioned the Tax Court.

In due course the case was assigned to Appeals and this is where things start to get messy. The Appeals officer stated, over the phone, that she agreed with the former partner. In other words, that the FPAA should be conceded. The Appeals Officer’s manager concurred but explained that they would need to consult with Appeals National Office before the agreement could be conveyed in a TEFRA settlement.  Appeals National Office did not agree with the Appeals Officer’s position, so the case did not settle.

Petitioner argues that the phone conversation with the Appeals Officer was a determination and should end the case. The basis for petitioner’s argument is that the IRS’s Appeals Judicial Approach and Culture initiative transformed Appeals to a quasi-judicial part of the IRS which listens to each side and then issues a decision (like a court) instead of negotiating settlements to end litigation.

The IRS does not dispute that the phone call occurred, nor does it dispute the substance of what the Appeals Officer said, but it does dispute that the phone call was a determination. The IRS acknowledges that AJAC may have changed how Appeals processes cases, but maintains it did not set up a system of informal agency adjudication followed by judicial review as those terms are commonly used in administrative law.  

The Court tasks itself to answer the only question it sees fit for summary judgment, which is: what is the proper characterization of what the Appeals officer said?

The Court can decide, as it has in other cases, whether the parties actually reached a settlement by applying contract law and by making any subsidiary findings of fact. But petitioner argues that the call was not a settlement, it was a determination and the Court has jurisdiction to review such determinations.

This is where the Court insists on its jurisdictional limitations and goes on to review all the different code sections that grant it jurisdiction. It does not find anything in the Code that allows it to review determinations by Appeals in TEFRA, or deficiency, cases.

The petitioner agrees that nothing in the Code provides the Court with jurisdiction to review Appeals determinations in deficiency cases. Instead petitioner argues that the default rules of the APA give the Court jurisdiction, because the Appeals Officer was the presiding agency employee and she had the authority to make a recommended or initial decision as prescribed by 5 U.S.C. 554 and 557, and the Appeals Officer’s decision is subject to judicial review under 5 U.S.C. 702.

This is where the Tax Court revisits some of the arguments made in Ax – that the Internal Revenue Code assigns Tax Court jurisdiction. This arrangement is permissible under what the APA calls “special statutory review proceedings” under 5 U.S.C. 703. See Les’s post here and Stephanie Hoffer and Christopher J. Walker’s post here for more information.

If petitioner seeks review under default rules of the APA, the Court’s scope of review would be limited to the administrative record with an abuse of discretion standard. This creates two different standards for TEFRA cases, and the Court finds this impossible to reconcile.

The reality is that when a petitioner is unhappy with a decision made by Appeals in a docketed case, they can bring the case before the Court. It seems as though petitioner in this case is trying to treat a decision made by the Appeals Officer assigned to the case as something different than a decision made by Appeals National Office – but a decision has not been rendered until a decision document is issued and executed by both parties. The Court points out that phone calls can be a relevant fact in determining whether the parties have reached a settlement, but it doesn’t mean the Court has the jurisdiction to review phone calls. Petitioner says phone call itself is of jurisdictional importance, but if that’s the case, it is the District Court, not the Tax Court, that is the appropriate venue to review it.

Is this a situation where petitioner is unhappy because there was a glimmer of hope that the case would go his way which was ultimately destroyed by the National office? Or is something more going on here?  AJAC is called a project and caused changes to the IRM. It’s not a regulation or even guidance provided to taxpayers – rather it is a policy for IRS employees to follow and seems to be a permissible process and within the agency’s discretion to use. But it’s not even AJAC itself that petitioner seems to have a problem with, instead petitioner’s problem lies with the difference between the appeals officer’s position and the National Office’s position on the case.

The Court denies petitioner’s summary judgment motion and orders the parties to file a status report to identify any remaining issues and explain whether a trial will be necessary.

Other Orders Designated

There were no designated orders during the week of April 1, which is why there is no April post from Patrick. The Court seemingly got caught up during the following week and there were nine other orders designated during my week. In my opinion, they were less notable, but I’ve briefly summarized them here:

  • Docket No. 20237-16, Leon Max v. CIR (order here): the Court reviews the sufficiency of petitioner’s answers and objections on certain requests for admissions in a qualified research expenditure case.
  • Docket No. 24493-18, James H. Figueroa v. CIR (order here): the Court grants respondent’s motion to dismiss a pro se petitioner for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • Docket No. 5956-18, Rhonda Howard v. CIR (order here): the Court grants a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute in a case with a nonresponsive petitioner.
  • Docket No. 12097-16, Trilogy, Inc & Subsidiaries v. CIR (order here): the Court grants petitioner’s motion in part to review the sufficiency of IRS’s responses to eight requests for admissions.
  • Docket No. 1092-18S, Pedro Manzueta v. CIR (order here): this is a bench opinion disallowing overstated schedule C deductions, dependency exemptions, the earned income credit, and the child tax credit.
  • Docket No. 13275-18S, Anthony S. Ventura & Suzanne M. Ventura v. CIR (order here): the Court grants a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to a petition filed after 90 days.
  • Docket No. 14213-18L, Mohamed A. Hadid v. CIR (order here): a bench opinion finding no abuse of discretion and sustaining a levy in a case where the taxpayer proposed $30K/month installment agreement on condition that an NFTL not be filed, but the financial forms did not demonstrate that petitioner had the ability to pay that amount each month.
  • Docket No. 5323-18L, Percy Young v. CIR (order here): the Court grants respondent’s motion to dismiss in a CDP case where petitioner did not provide any information.
  • Docket No. 5323-18L, Ruben T. Varela v. CIR (order here): the Court denies petitioner’s motion for leave to file second amended petition.

DOJ Argues that 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) Doesn’t Bar Altera’s APA Challenge to a Tax Regulation Made More Than 6 Years After Adoption

We welcome frequent guest blogger Carl Smith with breaking news about the Altera appeal pending in the 9th Circuit. Today’s news is not dispositive but does provide interesting insight on the Government’s view of a new issue raised by the 9th Circuit as the new panel reviewed the case. Keith

PT readers are no doubt aware of Altera v. Commissioner, 145 T.C. 91 (2015). In the case, the Tax Court invalidated a regulation under § 482 concerning the inclusion of stock option compensation in related-party cost-sharing arrangements. The two Tax Court dockets involved in the case were under the Tax Court’s deficiency jurisdiction in 2012. In those cases, Altera sought to invalidate a 2003 regulation both under the Chevron standard (i.e., not reasonable) and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Tax Court invalidated the regulation under both theories. The Tax Court found APA violations including the IRS’ (1) failure to respond to significant comments submitted by taxpayers and (2) in light of the administrative record showing otherwise, the IRS’ failure to support its belief that unrelated parties entering into cost sharing arrangement would allocate stock-based compensation costs.

As we blogged here, on July 24, 2018, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion upholding the regulation. But that opinion was later withdrawn because one of the judges in the majority had died before the opinion was issued. After a new judge was assigned to rehear the case, the parties were invited to (and did) submit supplemental briefs. (Four supplemental amicus briefs were also submitted.) On the day all of these supplemental briefs were submitted, September 28, 2018, the Ninth Circuit panel issued an order inviting further briefing from the parties by October 9 on an issue that had never before been argued in the case. The case is set for reargument before the new Ninth Circuit panel on October 16.

read more...

The recent order stated concerning this additional briefing issue:

The parties should be prepared to discuss at oral argument the question as to whether the six-year statute of limitations applicable to procedural challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), applies to this case and, if it does, what the implications are for this appeal. Perez-Guzman v. Lynch, 835 F.3d 1066, 1077-79 (9th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 737 (2018).

In Perez-Guzman, the Ninth Circuit had held that procedural challenges to regulatory authority (unlike Chevron substantive challenges) must be raised in a court suit within the 6-year catch-all federal statute of limitations at 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). Since the Altera deficiency cases had been brought more than six years after the pertinent regulation was adopted, the Ninth Circuit was, in effect, wondering whether all APA arguments in the case were time barred.

On October 9, however, the DOJ, rather than file a supplemental brief, filed a 5-page letter disclaiming any reliance on the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). The letter states, in part:

It is the Commissioner’s position that any pre-enforcement challenge to the regulations at issue here – including a purely procedural challenge under the APA, cf. Perez-Guzman, 835 F.3d at 1077-79 – would have been barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. See 26 U.S.C. (“I.R.C.” or “Code”) § 7421(a) (stating that, “[e]xcept as provided in” various Code sections (the most significant of which, I.R.C. § 6213(a), allows the pre-payment filing of a Tax Court petition in response to a statutory notice of deficiency), “no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person”) . . . . Thus, Altera properly asserted its challenge to the regulations in two Tax Court actions contesting notices of deficiency that reflected the enforcement of the regulations against it. See Redhouse v. Commissioner, 728 F.2d 1249, 1253 (9th Cir. 1984).

If Altera’s procedural APA challenge to the regulations were nonetheless subject to the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) (which would have started running on the date of issuance of the final regulation, see Perez-Guzman, 835 F.3d at 1077), then Altera would have had to pay the tax and file a refund claim within the six-year window – thereby forfeiting the opportunity to contest the enforcement of the regulations against it in the pre-payment forum of the Tax Court – in order to comply with that time limit. Because the Commissioner has never expressed the view that the six-year statute of limitations applies to a procedural APA challenge to a tax regulation in the context of a Tax Court deficiency proceeding, and because the IRS issued the notices of deficiency in this case outside the six-year APA window, it would have been unfair to argue below that Altera’s procedural APA claims are time-barred. And, given this Court’s holding that the six-year statute of limitations set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a) is not jurisdictional, Cedars-Sinai Med. Ctr. v. Shalala, 125 F.3d 765, 770 (9th Cir. 1997), the Commissioner waived any defense under that provision by not raising it in the Tax Court.

In sum, it is the Commissioner’s position that the six-year statute of limitations that is generally applicable to procedural challenges to regulations under the APA, see 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a), does not apply to this case.

Observation

Some people wonder why I litigate so much over whether or not filing deadlines are jurisdictional. The Altera case demonstrates again why this can often be a critical issue, since only nonjurisdictional filing deadlines are subject to waiver, forfeiture, estoppel, and equitable tolling.

 

Challenges to Regulations Update: Government Withdraws Appeal in Chamber of Commerce and New Oral Argument Set for Altera

One of the more interesting cases from last year was Chamber of Commerce v IRS, where a federal district court in Texas invalidated temporary regulations that addressed inversion transactions. The case raised a number of interesting procedural issues, including the reach of the Anti-Injunction Act and the relationship between Section 7805(e) and the APA.

Not surprisingly, the government appealed Chamber of Commerce. Over the summer, Treasury issued final regs that were substantively similar to the temporary regs that the district court struck down, and then the government filed a motion with the Fifth Circuit to dismiss its appeal with prejudice.

Last month the Fifth Circuit granted the motion.

read more...

The outcome in Chamber of Commerce illustrates the difficulty that taxpayers face when challenging regulations for process violations (i.e., failing to subject guidance to notice and comment) and in particular challenges to temporary regulations. After all, Treasury can (and did in this case) issue final regs, and Section 7805(b) provides that those regs take effect retroactively upon the earlier of the “date on which any proposed or temporary regulation to which such final regulation relates was filed with the Federal Register” or “the date on which any notice substantially describing the expected contents of any temporary, proposed, or final regulation is issued to the public.”

Chamber of Commerce is to be contrasted with challenges to regs that focus on the substantive way that the regulations interpret a statute; for example, earlier this summer the DC Circuit reversed the Tax Court in Good Fortune Shipping.There, the DC Circuit applied Chevron Step Two and held that Treasury regulations that categorically restricted an exemption to foreign owners of bearer shares unreasonably interpreted the Internal Revenue Code. The taxpayer in Good Fortune challenged the reg the old fashioned way– in a deficiency case as contrasted with the pre-enforcement challenge in Chamber of Commerce.

Probably the most watched procedural case of the year, Altera v Commissioner, also tees up a procedural challenge to regs, and like Good Fortune is also situated in a deficiency case. One of the main arguments that the taxpayer is raising in Altera is a cousin to the challenge in Chamber of Commerce; that is the taxpayer is challenging the way that the reg was promulgated (and the case also involves a Chevron Step Two challenge). In particular, the issue turns on whether the agency action [the regulation] is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 USC 706(2)(A). Altera involves Treasury’s compliance with § 706 of the APA as expanded on in the 1983 Supreme Court State Farm’s “reasoned decisionmaking” understanding of the clause prohibiting “arbitrary” or “capricious” agency action.

As Keith flagged a few weeks ago, after the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court and found that Treasury did enough in its rulemaking and held that the cost-sharing regulation was valid, the Ninth Circuit withdrew the opinion. The Ninth Circuit has now scheduled a new oral argument in Altera for October 16.

Stay tuned.

Review of Stephanie Hunter McMahon’s “The Perfect Process is the Enemy of the Good: Tax’s Exceptional Regulatory Process”

We welcome guest blogger Sonya Watson who teaches at UNLV law school where she is an assistant professor in residence and the director of the Rosenblum Family Foundation Tax Clinic. In the last few weeks, with decisions in Altera and Good Fortune, we have seen major circuit courts of appeal opinions considering whether Treasury’s regulations withstand challenge. Professor Watson returns to provide us with another review of a tax procedure article that directly considers the relationship of Tax regulations and broader administrative law concepts. Keith

Earlier this year I reviewed Professor Kristin Hickman’s article, “Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act,” in which she argued that that a narrow interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) is warranted to protect taxpayers’ presumptive right to pre-enforcement judicial review of agency rules and regulations under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”).  While the AIA prevents pre-enforcement review of tax laws, the APA allows pre-enforcement review. Hickman argues that it is especially important that taxpayers are able to invoke the APA and hold the IRS to the APA’s standards because of Treasury’s and IRS’ belief than in many instances, the APA does not apply to them. Today I review Professor Stephanie McMahon’s “The Perfect Process is the Enemy of the Good: Tax’s Exceptional Regulatory Process” in which McMahon plays devil’s advocate. McMahon argues that tax is exceptional and as such, Treasury and IRS shouldn’t be bound to the letter of the APA. Rather, Treasury and IRS should follow the spirit of the APA. She argues that this is especially true considering that the APA is not without flaws and that other agencies may not properly adhere to the APA either.

read more...

Because the procedures set out in the APA don’t always accomplish the APA’s goals, rather than focusing on whether agencies strictly adhere to the procedures set out in the APA, we should focus on whether the procedures that the agency does employ are in line with the goals underlying the procedures provided in the APA. The goals underlying the APA’s procedures include: the promotion of public deliberation; reasoned agency decision-making with few errors; and agency accountability to the public and Congress. McMahon argues strict adherence to the APA can thwart accomplishment of these goals. In particular, she takes issue with the APA’s notice and comment process.

The notice and comment process, along with the hard look doctrine, which requires agencies to “consider all comments and to explain why it was not persuaded by all but frivolous comments,” may cause agencies to delay or defer issuing guidance because doing so is too burdensome in terms of resources. Producing guidance costs money:

When not excepted from notice and comment procedures, agencies face significant costs associated with compliance. Although it is impossible to calculate all of the costs of rulemaking because data is unavailable or immeasurable, Professor David Franklin notes, “Congress, the President, and the courts have all taken steps that have made the notice-and-comment rulemaking process increasingly cumbersome and unwieldy. Even critics of tax exceptionalism note that the “procedures are quite burdensome.” Many federal agencies have responded by foregoing notice and comment and issuing interpretative tools, policy statements, and informal guidance. “[B]usy staffs, tight budgets, and a variety of competing priorities” may affect how agencies weight the choice of rulemaking tools.

Further, there is always the risk that that courts may invalidate a rule to which Treasury and IRS have devoted its scare resources.

Aside from being a drain on resources, the notice and comment process creates the potential for agency capture. Agency capture occurs when an interested party influences an agency by dominating it “in ways that are detrimental to the public purpose for which it was created.” There are several ways to capture an agency, one of which is with information. In the context of the IRS, the notice and comment process may lead to information capture if an interested taxpayer inundates the IRS with large amounts of information—evidence and arguments pertaining to a rule—which then may have the effect of drowning out other voices or overcomplicating the issues, making it more difficult for less sophisticated taxpayers to participate. Because the APA’s notice and comment process does not provide a way to effectively filter information so that agencies aren’t overwhelmed by the information received, the process may not achieve its goal of increased public participation in rulemaking. Further, the notice and comment process may be unnecessary considering that “[i]nformal meetings, roundtables, speeches and leaks, advisory committees, and negotiated rulemaking are ways to really get information from the public.”

To the extent that Treasury can promote the goals underlying the APA without following the APA, McMahon believes it makes sense for Treasury to do so. To this end she states that Treasury is justified in availing itself of the good cause exemption to the APA. The good cause exemption allows agencies to issue binding guidance without notice and comment by explaining why notice and comment would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Regarding Treasury’s use of the good cause exemption, McMahon writes:

Good arguments can be made for the good cause exemption to apply widely in the tax context. Currently tax provisions are tied to the federal government’s budget and there are restrictions on both deficit spending and the national debt. As a part of the federal fiscal planning, tax provisions are almost always estimated to have immediate effect, and that estimation is necessary in order to accomplish other goals of federal budgeting. In other words, if tax provisions were given delayed effective dates to permit time for notice and comment, this delay would alter the cost calculation of the federal budget.

The foregoing is in addition to the consideration that taxpayers and tax practitioners need Treasury to create guidance quickly in order to be able to better ensure compliance with the ever evolving tax laws.

Courts’ deference to agency rules is another important consideration in the debate over whether Treasury should be required to adhere to the APA. The more likely it is that courts will defer to an agency, the more important it is to make sure that the agency follows proper procedure in creating a rule. Final, legislative regulations enjoy significant deference but interpretative, proposed and, temporary regulations, as well as other types of guidance (revenue rulings, etc.) may enjoy less deference. This is because although agencies theoretically have broad discretion under Chevron, courts often apply tax-specific standards when deciding the extent to which they should defer to tax guidance, making deference harder to secure in the tax arena. Therefore, the idea that courts’ deference to agency rules make it vitally important that agencies follow proper procedure should be tempered with the knowledge that courts often don’t defer to agencies and that this is especially true in the case of Treasury and IRS.

Finally, adherence to the APA might inhibit the use of heuristics. The notice and comment process is meant to provide a means for an agency to receive information it should consider when creating guidance. However, it is unlikely that an agency will receive information regarding all the considerations it should make in creating guidance. So rather than relying on the notice and comment process to receive the information it needs to create good guidance, Treasury should create and rely on heuristics whenever possible. Heuristics are rules of thumb that aid decision making. Using heuristics in the administration of the Internal Revenue Code would allow non-experts to participate by giving them rules that are easier to apply. It also allows Treasury to keep up with changes in the law—because the Code continuously evolves, it is impossible to create guidance that will cover all possible scenarios. Heuristics don’t provide the specificity that regulations do, so using heuristics helps ensure compliance by those who might otherwise plan around the rules. Anyway, taxpayers and practitioners already use heuristics to understand and apply the code:

Developed through common law and now incorporated into practice by the IRS, tax lawyers know that gross income is interpreted broadly while deductions are construed narrowly as a matter of legislative grace, income is to be taxed to earners, substance prevails over form, and (although possibly threatened by codification) transactions need economic substance. These ideas, among others, guide the practice of law and the choices taxpayers make when they report the tax consequences of their activities. Without such guideposts, every new tax provision must be fully and singularly explicated, and any ambiguity litigated from scratch.

McMahon does acknowledge, however, that more detailed guidance may be necessary when heuristics are insufficient.

 

 

The Ninth Circuit Reverses the Tax Court Decision in Altera

We welcome back guest bloggers Professor Susan C. Morse and Stephen E. Shay. Professor Morse teaches at University of Texas Law School and Steve Shay teaches at Harvard. Both are great speakers and writers with a deep knowledge of international taxes honed when they worked together at the Boston law firm of Ropes and Gray. They provided insight on the Altera decision in which the Tax Court decided the case in a fully reviewed 15-0 opinion back in 2015 after the filing of their amicus brief, immediately prior to the oral argument and following the oral argument. The opinion provided perhaps the most important procedural development of 2015 and the reversal is big news as well. The post is a little longer than our normal post but the opinion it discusses is much longer and more important than most of the cases we cover. This is a big win for the IRS. Keith

On July 24, the Ninth Circuit upheld a key IRS transfer pricing regulation, worth billions of dollars in federal revenues, that requires sharing employee stock compensation costs as a condition for a “qualified cost sharing arrangement” or QCSA. In Altera Corp. v. Commissioner, a 2-1 panel reversed the Tax Court’s decision, which had invalidated the regulation under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

read more...

The conditions for a qualified cost sharing arrangement are described in U.S. tax regulations. If these are satisfied, the IRS will not make transfer pricing adjustments to the costs shared and will treat the cost sharing subsidiary as the co-owner, for tax purposes, of the intellectual property (IP) rights whose costs were shared. QCSAs benefit U.S. multinationals, since they allow MNCs to allocate to non-U.S. subsidiaries (usually in low-tax countries) income from their ownership of the IP.

The “sharing” of the cost of stock options granted to employees (such as engineers) who develop the intellectual property means that some related tax deductions are shifted to the non-U.S. subsidiary (to match with the shifted profit) rather than all of the deductions reducing the U.S. parent’s taxable income. These amounts are very large in the tech sector in particular and the industry has fought for years to avoid treatment of these expenses as costs to be shared in a QCSA. The failure to allocate the costs supports unjustified income shifting from the U.S. to countries where the foreign subsidiaries are located.

Altera, now part of Intel, claimed that its taxable income would be $80 million less if it were not required to share stock option costs. The Wall Street Journal has reported that the issue is worth at least $3.5 billion to Google alone. If the regulation were invalidated, the U.S. government would lose billions of dollars in tax revenue.

Treasury Regulation 1.482-7A was promulgated in 2003 under the authority of Internal Revenue Code Section 482, after notice and comment. Section 482 charges the Commissioner with reallocating income or deduction items “clearly to reflect” related taxpayers’ taxable income.

Altera argued that Section 482 required application of a narrow version of the “arm’s length” principle that only allowed the IRS to take account of costs if they were found in comparable cost sharing arrangements between unrelated parties. Because the stock option cost sharing regulation took the position that all relevant expenses had to be shared, and did not carve out stock option expenses not shared by unrelated parties, Altera contended – and the Tax Court agreed — that Treasury’s regulation was arbitrary and capricious and therefore invalid under the procedural strictures of the APA for failure to adequately explain its position in response to contrary comments. The Tax Court relied on the 1983 Supreme Court precedent State Farm and held that the reasoning supporting the stock option cost sharing regulation could not be discerned from materials such as the Preamble to the final regulations.

The thorough Ninth Circuit opinion starts with a history lesson on Section 482. The concept of “arm’s length” as primarily a comparable transactions method, which Altera focuses on, stems from 1968 regulations, which the court acknowledges featured a new “focus on comparability” (slip op. at 16). But the court explains that comparable transactions never had a monopoly on Section 482 adjustments. Cases in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s had rejected the view that Section 482 only turned on comparable transactions. As of 1981, more than ten years after the 1968 regulations, the GAO found that only 3% of IRS adjustments were based on “direct comparables.” (Slip op. at 17)

In 1986, a statutory amendment to Section 482 added a sentence, which requires income allocations “commensurate with the income attributable to the intangible.” In 1994 and 1995, regulations regarding direct and cost sharing intangible transfers were promulgated in response to the statutory change. The cost sharing regulations implemented the commensurate with income standard by conditioning shared ownership of intellectual property under QCSAs on shared allocation of all relevant costs incurred to produce the intangibles. As the Ninth Circuit explained in a footnote, “[c]ontemporary commentators understood that [in the cost sharing regulations], by attempting synthesis between the arm’s length and commensurate with income provisions, Treasury was moving away from a view of the arm’s length standard grounded in comparability.” (slip op. at 21 n. 4) The regulations involving direct transfers of intangibles also adopted some exclusively internal pricing rules using profit splits, which were understood as part of the arm’s length standard. These regulations have not been challenged by taxpayers for failure to rely on (unavailable) comparables. In 2003, Treasury promulgated the regulation at issue in Altera, which explicitly requires the sharing of stock option expense when a firm seeks the protection of a cost-sharing agreement under U.S. regulations.

The Ninth Circuit opinion adheres to general administrative law requirements, consistent with the Supreme Court’s 2011 Mayo decision. The court first evaluated Treasury’s compliance with § 706 of the APA under the State Farm’s “reasoned decisionmaking” understanding of the clause prohibiting “arbitrary” or “capricious” agency action. Then it considered whether the agency’s interpretation of the statute was permissible under Chevron.

Altera’s State Farm argument ran as follows. In the notice-and-comment process, tech industry and other commentators said that requiring related parties to share stock option costs couldn’t be arm’s length because unrelated parties did not share such costs. Commentators contended that nothing could replace comparable transactions, not even if exposure to a contract counterparty’s stock price would be unacceptable for unrelated parties but appropriate for related firms. Altera claimed that Treasury’s response to these comments was inadequate under § 706 of the APA.

Treasury responded, for example in the Preamble to the final regulation, by saying that the comments about comparable transactions were beside the point, because Section 482 does not require comparable transactions. In the regulation’s Preamble, Treasury justified the stock option cost-sharing regulation as consistent with “the legislative intent underlying section 482,” “the commensurate with income standard” and “the arm’s length standard.” Treasury’s view was that “arm’s length” meant a result consistent with what arm’s length parties would have bargained for, not a result that had to be predicated on comparable transactions.

Said the court: “[T]he thrust of Altera’s [State Farm] objection “was that Treasury misinterpreted § 482. But that is a separate question – one properly addressed in the Chevron analysis. That commentators disagreed with Treasury’s interpretation of the law does not make the rulemaking process defective.” (slip op. at 32) The court held that Treasury complied with the State Farm requirement because its regulatory intent could be discerned. It plainly “set forth its understanding that it should not examine comparable transactions when they do not in fact exist and should instead focus on a fair and reasonable allocation of costs and income,” (slip op. at 32). It treated the arm’s length standard as “aspirational, not descriptive.” (slip op. at 43)

The Ninth Circuit followed its State Farm analysis with an analysis of Chevron deference. Here, the question was not whether Treasury had clearly articulated its understanding of its authority under § 482, but rather whether it had stayed within the limits of that authority. As to Chevron step one, the court quickly found that Congress left gaps in transfer pricing law for the Treasury to fill with guidance. It is hard to see a different path. The statute includes broad delegation language, saying that “the Secretary may … allocate gross income, deductions [and other items of commonly controlled organizations] if he determines [it] necessary in order … clearly to reflect … income.”

The court’s Chevron step two analysis was also straightforward. When Congress added the commensurate with income standard to the statute in 1986, it communicated that “the goal of parity is not served by a constant search for comparable transactions” and that “the amendment was intended to hone the definition of the arm’s length standard.” (slip op. at 41) The commensurate with income statutory language directed Treasury to do precisely what it did, which was to promulgate internal standards to address the inadequacy of a narrow, comparable transactions approach to arm’s length. The court rejected the argument that Xilinx Inc. v Commissioner, a 2010 Ninth Circuit case, controlled its decision, in part because Xilinx involved the interpretation of pre-2003 regulations, which did not mention stock options.

Judge O’Malley, a Federal Circuit judge sitting by designation, dissented. On the Chevron issue, she wrote that Xilinx should control. Despite the 1986 addition of the “commensurate with income” standard to the statute and the express mention of stock option costs in the 2003 revisions to Treas. Reg. 1.482-7A, she wrote that the regulations had a “fundamental ‘purpose’” (slip op. at 51) consisting of the narrow, traditional arm’s length standard derived from comparable transactions. On the State Farm issue, she wrote that “Treasury may well have believed that, given the fundamental characteristics of stock-based compensation in QCSAs, it could dispense with arm’s length entirely…. But the APA required Treasury to say that it was taking this position….” (slip op. at 59).

Judge O’Malley also suggested a different interpretation of the text of Section 482, saying that the commensurate with income standard’s reference to a “transfer (or license) of intangible property” was not broad enough to include a qualified cost-sharing agreement. This interpretation, raised in an amicus brief submitted by Cisco Systems, cannot be right. Absent a cost-sharing agreement (or another kind of transfer or license other than a QCSA), intangibles would be owned by the affiliate whose workers created them. For Cisco, this would likely be Cisco Systems, Inc., the parent, publicly traded California-incorporated company that sits atop of the multinational Cisco firm and presumably employs Cisco’s engineers. But because of the cost-sharing agreement, some rights, for instance non-U.S. rights, to the intangibles are owned for tax purposes by a non-U.S. subsidiary, say Cisco Systems Netherlands Holdings B.V., which is apparently the holding company for Cisco’s European, Middle East and Africa business. The only explanation for Cisco Systems Netherlands Holdings B.V.’s tax ownership interest in intangibles created by Cisco Systems, Inc. is that, at least for tax purposes, Cisco’s cost-sharing agreement transferred or licensed intangibles from the U.S. parent to the (low-tax) non-U.S. subsidiary. Also, in practice, in addition to the transfer or license for tax purposes worked by the QCSA, cost sharing arrangements are accompanied by IP licenses to the cost sharing subsidiaries to protect their use of the IP.

A request for panel rehearing is not likely, since one of the panelists in the majority, Judge Stephen Reinhardt, unexpectedly passed away in March 2018. However, the taxpayer might request the Ninth Circuit to review the Altera decision en banc (which would not include Judge O’Malley, the dissenting judge, since she sits on the Federal Circuit). And appeal to the Supreme Court is possible as well.

Altera now involves a remarkable tangle of complex legal issues. It raises federal courts rules, international tax regulations, and intricate administrative case law. How strong is Altera’s hand in the event of appeal?

The federal courts issue is procedural: how should a judge’s vote be recorded when the judge dies before an opinion is issued? A footnote explains that “Judge Reinhardt fully participated in this case and formally concurred in the majority opinion before his death.” This is consistent with Ninth Circuit rules and the approach of some other circuits (though not all), giving perhaps little reason to think that the Ninth Circuit would reconsider the issue en banc. If the question is Supreme Court review, Altera might not be the best case for further consideration of this issue. There should be no actual concern that Judge Reinhardt would have changed his mind. Reinhardt voted for the government twice in Xilinx, as he was in the majority in the initial case and in dissent on rehearing. This means that he thought the government properly required the sharing of stock option costs even under the pre-2003 regulations that did not mention them.

The international tax and administrative law questions together raise the issues of compliance with Chevron deference and State Farm APA requirements. Here too, Altera does not hold a strong hand. Despite Judge O’Malley’s efforts, it is impossible to read the statute as limiting Treasury’s authority to the narrow, comparable transactions view of arm’s length analysis that the taxpayer advances. As the history of Section 482 shows, the statute clearly is not limited to traditional arm’s length analysis based on comparable transactions. This validates Treasury’s Preamble disagreement with commentators’ view that comparable transactions had to be used as a starting point.

In other words, the question is not close. Even if Chevron deference were cut back to Skidmore “power to persuade” deference, there would still be room under Section 482 for regulations that did not follow the narrow version of arm’s length based on comparable transactions. Plus, Altera covers an area that is a paradigm of technical tax expertise (unlike, for instance, the issue said to be outside Treasury’s wheelhouse in King v. Burwell). Even if the Supreme Court is inclined to consider limits to Chevron deference, Altera is not a good vehicle for that project.

 

 

 

Quick Takes: Altera, Senate Finance Committee Testimony on IRS Reform

I am trying to meet a deadline before a last gasp of summer vacation in California, and I have had a little less time than usual for blogging.  Tax procedure and tax administration developments wait for no one, however, and much has been happening this week. I will briefly discuss and add some links to two major developments: the Altera case and the Senate Finance Committee Subcommittee on Tax and IRS Oversight hearing.

Altera

As I am sure many readers know, the Ninth Circuit reversed the Tax Court in the heavily anticipated case of Altera v Commissioner, a case we have blogged numerous times. The basic holdings in the Ninth Circuit case all involved the broader question as to whether Treasury exceeded “its authority in requiring Altera’s cost-sharing arrangement to include a particular distribution of employee stock compensation costs.”

The Ninth Circuit, in a divided opinion that included now deceased Judge Stephen Reinhardt in the majority, concluded that the Treasury did not. In so doing, it held that Treasury did not violate the APA in its rulemaking, and under Chevron the court deferred to Treasury’s take on the substantive issue of allocation of employee stock compensation costs.

We will have more on this decision in PT. In the meantime, here are some comments on the decision in the blogosgphere:

Dan Shaviro in Start Making Sense trumpets the 9thCircuit getting to the right outcome

Leandra Lederman in The Surly Subgroup, who like Professor Shaviro wrote an amicus arguing for reversal, succinctly summarizes the holding

Jack Townsend, who in his Federal Tax Procedure blog, in addition to linking to his excellent and free tax procedure book offers his take on the case, including his gloss on Chevron and his forecast that if the Supreme Court gets to this one there is a good chance for the Supremes “screwing it up”

Chris Walker at Notice and Comment who expresses unease about the process, especially the aspect of including as part of the majority a judge who passed away prior to the Court’s issuing the opinion

Alan Horowitz at Miller & Chevalier’s Tax Appellate blog, discussing the holding and likely petition for rehearing by the full circuit

Senate Hearing on Tax Administration

The Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommitte on Taxation and IRS Oversight had a hearing yesterday on improving tax administration.

Here is a link to the audio; witnesses, whose written testimony is linked above, were

  • Caroline Bruckner, Managing Director of the Kogod Tax Policy Center at American University ;
  • Phyllis Jo Kubey, Member of the National Association of Enrolled Agents and the IRS Advisory Council ;
  • Nina Olson, the National Taxpayer Advocate ;
  • John Sapp, the current Chair of the Electronic Tax Administration Advisory Committee advising the Internal Revenue Service, and
  • Rebecca Thompson, the Project Director of the Taxpayer Opportunity

Senator Portman’s introductory statement is here—in it he notes the 20thanniversary of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act, and how he and Senator Cardin recently introduced the Taxpayer First Act(following the House passing its version of legislation).

The National Taxpayer Advocate blogged on the hearing, including her take encouraging “everyone who cares about improving tax administration to watch the hearing and read the testimony submitted.”