DOCSLIB.ORG

Reforming Federal Tax Litigation: an Agenda

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Reforming Federal Tax Litigation: an Agenda Florida State University Law Review Volume 41 Issue 1 Article 8 2013 Reforming Federal Tax Litigation: An Agenda Steve R. Johnson [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steve R. Johnson, Reforming Federal Tax Litigation: An Agenda, 41 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 205 (2013) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol41/iss1/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW REFORMING FEDERAL TAX LITIGATION: AN AGENDA Steve R. Johnson VOLUME 41 FALL 2013 NUMBER 1 Recommended citation: Steve R. Johnson, Reforming Federal Tax Litigation: An Agenda, 41 FLA. ST. U. L. REV. 205 (2013). REFORMING FEDERAL TAX LITIGATION: AN AGENDA STEVE R. JOHNSON* I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 205 II. CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING REFORMS ................................................................. 208 A. Sources of Criteria ..................................................................................... 208 B. Shaping Developments............................................................................... 211 1. Creation and Expansion of Refund Remedies ..................................... 212 2. The Anti-Injunction Act and Its Exceptions......................................... 215 3. Creation of Prepayment Remedies ....................................................... 217 4. Flora Full Payment Rule ..................................................................... 219 5. Powell and IRS Information Gathering .............................................. 222 6. Federal Tax Lien Act ............................................................................ 226 7. Shapiro, Laing, and Jeopardy Assessment Review .............................. 229 8. TEFRA Partnership Audit/Litigation Procedures .............................. 231 9. Brockamp and Equitable Tolling ........................................................ 233 10. IRS Restructuring and Reform Act ...................................................... 235 11. Ballard and Tax Court Process ............................................................ 237 12. Administrative Law in Tax .................................................................. 240 C. Criteria ....................................................................................................... 244 III. REFORMS AS TO AVAILABLE COURTS ................................................................. 246 A. Tax Court Jurisdiction .............................................................................. 247 1. Historical Growth of Tax Court Jurisdiction ...................................... 247 2. Areas Where the Tax Court Lacks Jurisdiction ................................... 249 3. Where to Expand Tax Court Jurisdiction and Where Not to Expand ................................................................................................ 249 B. National Court of Tax Appeals .................................................................. 252 C. Court of Federal Claims Jurisdiction ........................................................ 254 1. History .................................................................................................. 254 2. Reasons for Change .............................................................................. 256 IV. REFORMS AS TO AVAILABLE FORMS OF ACTION................................................. 258 A. TEFRA Rules ............................................................................................. 258 1. Unnecessary ......................................................................................... 259 2. Harmful ............................................................................................... 261 B. Judicial Review of CDP Determinations ................................................... 264 V. REFORM AS TO PREREQUISITE TO SUIT ............................................................. 267 A. Flora “Full Payment” Rule ......................................................................... 267 B. Changes Not Proposed ............................................................................... 271 VI. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................... 272 I. INTRODUCTION King Vertigorn, it is said, wished to build a castle to defend Brit- ain against invaders. Each day, his mason raised and set the stones. Each night, however, the earth would rumble, bringing the work * University Professor of Law, Florida State University College of Law. I thank participants in the Symposium—particularly Professor Leandra Lederman, the primary commentator on this Article at the Symposium—for their criticisms, observations, and encouragement. I also thank Mary McCormick of the Florida State University College of Law Research Center for research assistance. 206 FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 41:205 crashing to the ground. Vexed, Vertigorn asked Merlin for an expla- nation. Merlin’s mystical divination revealed that, in a cavern far below the surface, there resided two foes, a red dragon and a white dragon. In their perpetual struggle for dominance, first one dragon then the other would gain temporary ascendancy. Their jostling un- settled the ground, rendering all construction temporary. In federal tax procedure, the red dragon and the white dragon are facilitation of revenue collection and fairness to taxpayers. Numerous times during the first century of the modern federal income tax, the courts have noted the centrality of the first value: “taxes are the life- blood of government, and their prompt and certain availability an imperious need.”1 But, were that the only value, we could return to brutal efficiency of the proscription system. We have refrained from doing so because our limited government traditions demand that citi- zens’ claims to due process under the law be taken seriously. Thus, tax administration in the United States—before, during, and (no doubt) after the income tax’s first one hundred years—has involved and will involve the balancing of the revenue facilitation and fairness protection imperatives.2 Just as the power balance be- tween the red and white dragons fluctuated, so have the relative weights accorded the two tax imperatives. During times of interna- tional or domestic crisis, we have looked to Government to save us from threats. This demands opening wider the spigot of fiscal flows, so the first tax value receives greater weight. During more placid times, menace recedes, causing the virtues of the second value to ap- pear more attractive. In short, the pendulum swings between emphasis on revenue maximization and taxpayer protection. This affects legislative, regu- latory, and judicial actions; it implicates not just substantive rules of tax liability and tax rates but also styles of statutory interpretation3 and the rules and devices of tax procedure. 1. Bull v. United States, 295 U.S. 247, 259 (1935); see also United States v. Dalm, 494 U.S. 596, 604 (1990); United States v. Nat’l Bank of Commerce, 472 U.S. 713, 733 (1985); United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U.S. 715, 734 (1979). 2. The tension between the values has been evident since the founding of the Ameri- can Republic. Alexander Hamilton, our first Secretary of the Treasury, proposed a general ad valorem duty on all imports. “Immediate opposition in the Congress was rooted in a fear of the alleged centralizing tendencies involved in creating a large force of collectors on the Federal level.” INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, U.S. TREASURY DEP’T, PUB. NO. 447, THE UNITED STATES TAX SYSTEM: A BRIEF HISTORY 4 (1960). One of the opponents described the proposal as the “horror of all free States,” one that was “hostile to the liberties of the peo- ple,” and which would “convulse the government; let loose a swarm of harpies, who, under the domination of the revenue officers, will range the country prying into every man’s house and affairs, and, like the Macedonian phalanx, bear down all before them.” Id. 3. This is reflected in the assertion, disappearance, and occasional reappearance in federal tax jurisprudence of a canon under which tax statutes were construed strictly against the Government and in favor of taxpayers. See, e.g., Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, 2013] REFORMING FEDERAL TAX LITIGATION 207 This Article is about the procedural rules. Specifically, it considers the mechanisms by which disputes as to federal tax liabilities are re- solved. The Article identifies an agenda for reforming federal tax liti- gation.4 Fully developing the justifications for and the particulars of the proposed changes necessarily is the work of more than one arti- cle. Thus, this Article sets the agenda, describing the core elements of the changes (and, in some cases, the reaffirmations) I propose. Sub- sequent articles will develop specific proposals in greater detail. Part II of this Article explores the criteria that should guide choic- es in this area. A fairly uncontroversial list of candidate criteria would include such things as decisional accuracy, efficiency, and ac- tual and perceived equity. However, considerable controversy likely would exist, even among competent commentators, as to
Load more

Recommended publications
  • RESTORING the LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E
    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION RESTORING THE LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E. Hickman* & Gerald Kerska† Should Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents be eligible for pre-enforcement judicial review? The D.C. Circuit’s 2015 decision in Florida Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Department of the Treasury puts its interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act at odds with both general administrative law norms in favor of pre-enforcement review of final agency action and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the nearly identical Tax Injunction Act. A 2017 federal district court decision in Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, appealable to the Fifth Circuit, interprets the Anti-Injunction Act differently and could lead to a circuit split regarding pre-enforcement judicial review of Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents. Other cases interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act more generally are fragmented and inconsistent. In an effort to gain greater understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act and its role in tax administration, this Article looks back to the Anti- Injunction Act’s origin in 1867 as part of Civil War–era revenue legislation and the evolution of both tax administrative practices and Anti-Injunction Act jurisprudence since that time. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1684 I. A JURISPRUDENTIAL MESS, AND WHY IT MATTERS ...................... 1688 A. Exploring the Doctrinal Tensions.......................................... 1690 1. Confused Anti-Injunction Act Jurisprudence .................. 1691 2. The Administrative Procedure Act’s Presumption of Reviewability ................................................................... 1704 3. The Tax Injunction Act .................................................... 1707 B. Why the Conflict Matters ....................................................... 1712 * Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Measuring Tax Burden: a Historical Perspective
    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth Volume Author/Editor: Ernst R. Berndt and Jack E. Triplett, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-04384-3 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/bern91-1 Conference Date: May 12-14, 1988 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective Chapter Author: B. K. Atrostic, James R. Nunns Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981 Chapter pages in book: (p. 343 - 420) 11 Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective B. K. Atrostic and James R. Nunns 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Overview Measures of tax burden are indicators of how well tax policy meets one of its primary goals, equitably raising the revenues needed to run government. Equity has two aspects. The first, vertical equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with different abilities to pay. The second, hori- zontal equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with the same ability to pay. Tax burden measures thus answer broad economic and social questions about the effect of tax policy on the distribution of income and wealth. The history of these measures incorporates the histories of economic and world affairs, major tax and economic policy legislation, intellectual and so- cial movements, and data and technological innovation in the fifty years since the first meeting of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay"
    1-1-2008 Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay" Sergio Pareja University of New Mexico - School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sergio Pareja, Taxation Without Liquidation: Rethinking "Ability to Pay", 2008 Wisconsin Law Review 841 (2008). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/law_facultyscholarship/257 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the UNM School of Law at UNM Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of UNM Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. PAREJA – FINAL 1/28/2009 3:06 PM TAXATION WITHOUT LIQUIDATION: RETHINKING “ABILITY TO PAY” SERGIO PAREJA* This Article proposes a novel way to tax wealth transfers. Specifically, it suggests that we divide all assets transferred by gift or bequest into two classes—illiquid assets and liquid assets. The recipient should include those assets in income but be allowed two options. With respect to illiquid assets, the recipient should be able to avoid immediate income inclusion if he takes the property with an income-tax basis of zero. With respect to liquid assets, the recipient should be allowed a full income-tax deduction if he rolls the gift or bequest into a deductible IRA. The combination of these simple rules would be much more equitable than our current system, and it would prevent people from having to sell illiquid assets to pay taxes. Introduction ........................................................................................... 842 I. Historical Framework ...............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History
    Order Code 98-473 Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Updated April 11, 2007 Gregg A. Esenwein Specialist in Public Finance Government and Finance Division Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Summary Since the enactment of the individual income tax in 1913, the appropriate taxation of capital gains income has been a perennial topic of debate in Congress. Almost immediately legislative steps were initiated to change and modify the tax treatment of capital gains and losses. The latest changes in the tax treatment of individual capital gains income occurred in 1998 and 2003. It is highly probable that capital gains taxation will continue to be a topic of legislative interest in the 109th Congress. Capital gains income is often discussed as if it were somehow different from other forms of income. Yet, for purposes of income taxation, it is essentially no different from any other form of income from capital. A capital gain or loss is merely the result of a sale or exchange of a capital asset. An asset sold for a higher price than its acquisition price produces a gain, an asset sold for a lower price than its acquisition price produces a loss. Ideally, a tax consistent with a theoretically correct measure of income would be assessed on real (inflation-adjusted) income when that income accrues to the taxpayer. Conversely, real losses would be deducted as they accrue to the taxpayer. In addition, under an ideal comprehensive income tax, any untaxed real appreciation in the value of capital assets given as gifts or bequests would be subject to tax at the time of transfer.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • What Code Section 108 Tells Us About Congress’S Response to Economic Crisis
    ARMSTRONG-PROOF DONE.DOCM 8/8/2011 10:41 AM FROM THE GREAT DEPRESSION TO THE CURRENT HOUSING CRISIS: WHAT CODE SECTION 108 TELLS US ABOUT CONGRESS’S RESPONSE TO ECONOMIC CRISIS Monica D. Armstrong* I. Introduction ......................................................................... 70 II. Discharge of Indebtedness: Gross Income or Not—Its Complicated History ............................................................ 72 III. The Great Depression, Kirby Doctrine, ............................... 76 and the Judicially-Created Insolvency Exception ............... 76 A. Net Assets Test: Defining Insolvency ......................... 79 B. Purchase Price Reduction Exception ............................ 80 C. Gift Exception ............................................................... 82 D. Codification of the Judicially-Created Exceptions: Bankruptcy Tax Act of 1980 ........................................ 83 IV. Economic Crisis: The Farm Credit Crisis of the 1980s Response: Section 108(a)(1)(C) ......................................... 85 A. Definition of QFI .......................................................... 87 B. Criticisms of the Section 108(a)(1)(C): Tax Attribute Limitation Contrary to Legislative Intent ...... 88 C. Insolvent Farmers Excluded ......................................... 89 D. “Trade or Business of Farming” ................................... 90 E. Gross Receipts Test ...................................................... 90 V. Economic Crisis: Housing/Mortgage Crisis Congressional Response: Section 108(a)(1)(E)
    [Show full text]
  • "Relief" Provisions in the Revenue Act of 1943
    "RELIEF" PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943 By JAMES E. FAHEY t THE Revenue Act of 1943 1 is an anomaly in the framework of income tax legislation.2 Its most obvious distinction lies in the manner of its enactment. It is the first revenue raising measure ever to be vetoed by a president and the first ever to be passed over veto. The political storm which engulfed Congress and the President over the bill's passage cen- tered in large measure over the so-called "relief" provisions found in the bill. These provisions alternately have been defended as accomplishing the correction of existing inequities in the law and assailed as providing loopholes enabling certain favored individuals and industries to avoid their equitable share in financing the war. A scrutinization of these con- troversial provisions in the light of the situations which they were de- signed to change may serve to focus the issue more clearly for the reader whose opinions are yet to be crystallized. Specifically, the President's veto message ' criticized five "relief" pro- visions in the bill as being special privilege measures. They were the provision for non-recognition of gain or loss on corporate reorganiza- tions carried on under court supervision and the concomitant "basis" provision,4 the extension of percentage depletion to certain minerals which were theretofore denied its use,' a provision making optional to taxpay- ers in the timber or logging business an accounting procedure which would enable them to treat the cutting of their timber as the sale of a capital asset,6 the extension of favored excess profits tax treatment formerly given only to producers of minerals and timber to producers of natural gas,7 and a broadening of the existing exemption of air mail carriers from excess profits taxes.8 t fember of the Kentucky Bar; Lecturer in Taxation, University of Louisville Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Accounts Committee, 70. 186 Adams. Abigail, 56 Adams, Frank, 196
    Index Accounts Committee, 70. 186 Appropriations. Committee on (House) Adams. Abigail, 56 appointment to the, 321 Adams, Frank, 196 chairman also on Rules, 2 I I,2 13 Adams, Henry, 4 I, 174 chairman on Democratic steering Adams, John, 41,47, 248 committee, 277, 359 Chairmen Stevens, Garfield, and Adams, John Quincy, 90, 95, 106, 110- Randall, 170, 185, 190, 210 111 created, 144, 167. 168, 169, 172. 177, Advertisements, fS3, I95 184, 220 Agriculture. See also Sugar. duties on estimates government expenditures, 170 Jeffersonians identified with, 3 1, 86 exclusive assignment to the, 2 16, 32 1 prices, 229. 232, 261, 266, 303 importance of the, 358 tariffs favoring, 232, 261 within the Joint Budget Committee, 274 Agriculture Department, 303 loses some jurisdiction, 2 10 Aid to Families with Dependent Children members on Budget, 353 (AFDC). 344-345 members on Joint Study Committee on Aldrich, Nelson W., 228, 232. 241, 245, Budget Control, 352 247 privileged in reporting bills, 185 Allen, Leo. 3 I3 staff of the. 322-323 Allison, William B., 24 I Appropriations, Committee on (Senate), 274, 352 Altmeyer, Arthur J., 291-292 American Medical Association (AMA), Archer, William, 378, 381 Army, Ci.S. Spe also War Department 310, 343, 345 appropriation bills amended, 136-137, American Newspaper Publishers 137, 139-140 Association, 256 appropriation increases, 127, 253 American Party, 134 Civil War appropriations, 160, 167 American Political Science Association, Continental Army supplies, I7 273 individual appropriation bills for the. American System, 108 102 Ames, Fisher, 35. 45 mobilization of the Union Army, 174 Anderson, H. W., 303 Arthur, Chester A,, 175, 206, 208 Assay omces, 105, 166 Andrew, John, 235 Astor, John Jacob, 120 Andrews, Mary.
    [Show full text]
  • The Official
    1 APUSH Timeline For Exam Review ERA By R. Ryland, Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy (Mooresboro, NC) Inspired by “Mr. Tesler’s Cram Packet,” (Queens, NY) EARLY COLONIAL ERA (Transplantations), 17th c. Origins and objectives of English settlements in New World How/why the English colonies differed in purpose & administration THEMES 1492: Columbus lands in Caribbean islands 1497: John Cabot lands in North America. 1513: Ponce de Leon claims Florida for Spain. 1524: Verrazano explores North American Coast. 1539-1542: Hernando de Soto explores the Mississippi River Valley. 1540-1542: Coronado explores what will be the Southwestern United States. 1565: Spanish found the city of St. Augustine in Florida. 1579: Sir Francis Drake explores the coast of California. 1584 – 1587: Roanoke – the lost colony 1607: British establish Jamestown Colony – bad land, malaria, rich men, no gold o Headright System – land for population – people spread out 1608: French establish colony at Quebec. 1609: United Provinces establish claims in North America. 1614: Tobacco cultivation introduced in Virginia. – by Rolfe 1619: First African slaves brought to British America. o Virginia begins representative assembly – House of Burgesses 1620: Plymouth Colony is founded. o Mayflower Compact signed – agreed rule by majority 1624 – New York founded by Dutch 1629: Mass. Bay founded – “City Upon a Hill” o Gov. Winthrop o Bi-cameral legislature, schools 1630: The Puritan Migration 1632: Maryland – for profit – proprietorship 1634 – Roger Williams banished from Mass. Bay Colony 1635: Connecticut founded 1636: Rhode Island is founded – by Roger Williams o Harvard College is founded 1638 – Delaware founded – 1st church, 1st school 1649 – Maryland Toleration Act – (toleration for all Christians) – later repealed by MA Protestants 1650-1696: The Navigation Acts are enacted by Parliament.
    [Show full text]
  • Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked Stephanie Hunter Mcmahon
    Journal of Legislation Volume 37 | Issue 2 Article 1 5-1-2011 Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked Stephanie Hunter McMahon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation McMahon, Stephanie Hunter (2011) "Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 37: Iss. 2, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol37/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL HOT POTATO: HOW CLOSING LOOPHOLES CAN GET POLICYMAKERS COOKED Stephanie HunterMcMahon* ABSTRACT Loopholes in the law are weaknesses that allow the law to be circumvented Once created, they prove hard to eliminate. A case study of the evolving tax unit used in the federal income tax explores policymakers' response to loopholes. The 1913 income tax created an opportunity for wealthy married couples to shift ownership of family income between spouses, then to file separately, and, as a result, to reduce their collective taxes. In 1948, Congress closed this loophole by extending the income-splitting benefit to all married taxpayers filing jointly. Congress acted only after the federal judiciary and Treasury Department pleaded for congressional reform and, receiving none, reduced their roles policing wealthy couples' tax abuse. The other branches would no longer accept the delegated power to regulate the tax unit. By examining these developments, this article explores the impact of the separation of powers on the closing of loopholes and adds to our understandingof how the government operates.
    [Show full text]
  • Joint Committee on Taxation Description of Revenue Provisions
    [JOINT COMMITTEE PRINT] DESCRIPTION OF REVENUE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 2010 BUDGET PROPOSAL PART TWO: BUSINESS TAX PROVISIONS Prepared by the Staff of the JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION September 2009 U.S. Government Printing Office Washington: 2009 JCS-3-09 JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION 111TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION ________ HOUSE SENATE Charles B. Rangel, New York Max Baucus, Montana Chairman Vice Chairman Fortney Pete Stark, California John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia Sander M. Levin, Michigan Kent Conrad, North Dakota Dave Camp, Michigan Chuck Grassley, Iowa Wally Herger, California Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Thomas A. Barthold, Chief of Staff Emily S. McMahon, Deputy Chief of Staff Bernard A. Schmitt, Deputy Chief of Staff CONTENTS Page INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1 I. TAX INCENTIVES AND OTHER TAX REDUCTIONS ................................................ 2 A. Increase in Limitations on Expensing of Certain Depreciable Business Assets ........... 2 B. Qualified Small Business Stock .................................................................................... 5 C. Make the Research Credit Permanent ........................................................................... 7 D. Expand Net Operating Loss Carryback ...................................................................... 25 E. Restructure Transportation Infrastructure Assistance to New York City ................... 30 II. REVENUE RAISING
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Reform and Capital Gains: the Aw R Against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over Richard A
    Journal of Legislation Volume 14 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1-1987 Tax Reform and Capital Gains: The aW r against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over Richard A. Gephardt Michael R. Wessel Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation Gephardt, Richard A. and Wessel, Michael R. (1987) "Tax Reform and Capital Gains: The aW r against Unfari Taxes Is Far from Over," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 14: Iss. 1, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol14/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TAX REFORM AND CAPITAL GAINS: THE WAR AGAINST UNFAIR TAXES IS FAR FROM OVER Richard A. Gephardt* with Michael R. Wessel** INTRODUCTION In the fall of 1986, Congress completed the process of fundamen- tally reforming the U.S. Tax Code. The House of Representatives passed a comprehensive tax reform bill late in December 1985.1 The bill underwent radical change in the Senate Finance Committee. 2 Pres- ident Reagan signed the Tax Reform Act of 19861 on October 22, 1986. The U.S. Tax Code has grown from eighty-nine pages in 19134 to thousands of pages in 1987. Additionally, the regulations and case law needed to interpret the Code require analysis of volumes of reference materials.' The Deficit Reduction Act of 19846 alone topped 1,300. pages.
    [Show full text]