DOCSLIB.ORG

“Fighting Regs” and Judicial Deference in Tax Litigation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Fighting Regs” and Judicial Deference in Tax Litigation THE FIGHT OVER “FIGHTING REGS” AND JUDICIAL DEFERENCE IN TAX LITIGATION LEANDRA LEDERMAN∗ INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 644 I. THE CONFUSED HISTORY OF DEFERENCE TO TAX GUIDANCE ............ 649 A. The Legislative/Interpretative Distinction Generally .................. 649 B. Categorizing Treasury Regulations ............................................. 654 II. WHAT LEVEL OF DEFERENCE DO TAX AUTHORITIES GENERALLY WARRANT? .......................................................................................... 659 A. Treasury Regulations ................................................................... 659 B. Revenue Rulings .......................................................................... 664 C. The Gans Proposal ...................................................................... 668 III. “FIGHTING” TAX RULINGS .................................................................. 671 A. A Typology of Advocacy-Oriented Rulings.................................. 671 B. Courts’ Treatments of Fighting Regulations and Rulings ........... 674 1. Final Treasury Regulations .................................................... 675 2. The Controversy over Temporary Regulations ..................... 678 3. Revenue Rulings .................................................................... 687 C. Rulemaking During Litigation: A Deference Proposal ............... 695 CONCLUSION ................................................................................................... 699 Courts typically accord some level of deference to agency interpretations of statutes. Should that change for a “fighting” regulation that an agency has issued during the course of related litigation? The Treasury Department has done that many times, as highlighted by the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court decision ∗ William W. Oliver Professor of Tax Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, IN; [email protected]. The author would like to thank Ellen Aprill, Joshua Blank, Jonathan Forman, Kristen Fowler, David Gamage, Dick Harvey, Kristin Hickman, Martin McMahon, Emily Meazell, Katie Pratt, Eric Rasmusen, Deborah Schenk, Dan Shaviro, and Ted Seto for comments on previous drafts. She is also grateful for helpful discussions with Fred Aman, Karen Brown, Neil Buchanan, Karen Burke, Hannah Buxbaum, Deborah Geier, Charlene Luke, Stephen Mazza, Richard Pierce, Gregg Polsky, Ryan Scott, John Stinneford, Elisabeth Zoller, and participants in faculty workshops at the University of Florida Levin College of Law, the George Washington University School of Law, and the University of Oklahoma College of Law; Tax Policy Colloquia at New York University School of Law and Loyola Law School – Los Angeles; the 2011 Law and Society Association meeting; the University of San Diego School of Tax Law Speaker Series; and the Tulane Tax Roundtable. Brandon Benjamin, Amanda Brewster, Robert Christie, Katherine Erbeznik, Tyler Hawkins, Michele Roberts, and Gordon Wilson provided valuable research assistance, and Sheila Gerber provided extraordinary administrative support. 643 644 BOSTON UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. 92:643 in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States and a series of recent courts of appeals cases that led to a grant of certiorari in Home Concrete & Supply, LLC v. United States. To answer the question of how “fighting regs” and other litigation-oriented tax guidance should be treated, this Article first analyzes the law on judicial deference to tax authorities generally, making sense of the confused tax- specific historical approach. It then considers the context of rulings issued during pending litigation. The Article explains that, following the 2011 decision in Mayo, deference under the famous Chevron case applies to all Treasury regulations issued in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act. It further argues that Revenue Rulings – formal guidance issued by the Internal Revenue Service – should receive deference under Skidmore v. Swift & Co., in accordance with United States v. Mead Corp. and Mayo. The Article proposes that regulations and rulings issued during related litigation receive the applicable level of deference (Chevron or Skidmore) but that the deference inquiry take into account the retroactivity and surprise issues raised by the timing of the guidance. INTRODUCTION Imagine a corporation that sells its own stock at a time when the applicable Treasury regulation provides that such sales are tax-free, yet the government claims in litigation that the sale should be taxable. The Treasury Department amends the regulation during the litigation to state that such sales are taxable, retroactive to the year of the taxpayer’s transaction. That is essentially what happened in Helvering v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,1 and resembles the facts of a number of very recent cases.2 Should courts defer to the regulation in such a context? The question of how much deference courts should accord agency interpretations of statutes is an important issue that cuts across distinct areas of substantive law, including banking law,3 communications law,4 environmental 1 306 U.S. 110 (1939). 2 See infra Part III.B (discussing recent courts of appeals cases and the grant of certiorari in Home Concrete & Supply, LLC v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 71 (2011)). Regulations issued during related litigation are sometimes called “fighting regulations.” See Indianapolis Life Ins. Co. v. United States, 940 F. Supp. 1370, 1388 (S.D. Ind. 1996) (“Indianapolis Life characterizes [the regulation] as a ‘fighting regulation’ issued for the purpose of bolstering the government’s litigation position.”). 3 See, e.g., Cuomo v. Clearing House Ass’n, 129 S. Ct. 2710, 2715 (2009) (applying deference pursuant to Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), to the interpretation of the term “visitorial powers” in the National Bank Act by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (Comptroller)); Smiley v. Citibank (S.D.), N.A., 517 U.S. 735, 739 (1996) (applying Chevron deference to the Comptroller’s interpretation of the word “interest” in the National Bank Act). 4 See, e.g., Nat’l Cable & Telecomms. Ass’n v. Brand X Internet Servs., 545 U.S. 967, 2012] THE FIGHT OVER “FIGHTING REGS” 645 law,5 labor law,6 and tax law.7 The level of judicial deference matters because greater deference increases the likelihood that an agency regulation or ruling will be upheld, which in turn provides agencies with greater discretion in their rulemaking.8 As is well known, Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.9 is the leading judicial deference case, setting forth a famously deferential two-step test.10 As the U.S. Supreme Court explained in a footnote in Chevron, “The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the 986 (2005) (applying Chevron deference to the Federal Communication Commission’s (FCC’s) classification of broadband cable modem service as “telecommunications service”); Kevin Werbach, Off the Hook, 95 CORNELL L. REV. 535, 591-92 (2010) (discussing deference to the FCC). 5 See, e.g., Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 467 U.S. at 842-43 (addressing whether the Environmental Protection Agency’s interpretation of a term in the Clean Air Act was permissible); Jason J. Czarnezki, An Empirical Investigation of Judicial Decisionmaking, Statutory Interpretation, and the Chevron Doctrine in Environmental Law, 79 U. COLO. L. REV. 767, 768-69 (2008). 6 See, e.g., Christensen v. Harris Cnty., 529 U.S. 576, 586-88 (2000) (discussing the appropriate level of deference to give to a Department of Labor opinion letter on a provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938); Catherine L. Fisk & Deborah C. Malamud, The NLRB in Administrative Law Exile: Problems with Its Structure and Function and Suggestions for Reform, 58 DUKE L.J. 2013, 2079-85 (2009) (suggesting that review of National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) actions and judicial deference to the agency become more consistent with review of and deference to all federal agency decisions). 7 See, e.g., Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 711-15 (2011) (applying Chevron to a Treasury regulation issued under the general- authority provision of the Internal Revenue Code); Kristin E. Hickman, The Need for Mead: Rejecting Tax Exceptionalism in Judicial Deference, 90 MINN. L. REV. 1537, 1539 (2006) (“Settling the question of deference toward Treasury regulations carries significant implications for both tax jurisprudence and tax policy.”). 8 See David M. Hasen, The Ambiguous Basis of Judicial Deference to Administrative Rules, 17 YALE J. ON REG. 327, 332 (2000) (“[O]ne effect of Chevron’s replacement of the variable judicial deference that had been applied to agencies’ legislative rules with a blanket rule of deference to reasonable agency interpretations of ambiguous or silent statutes has been to grant agencies vastly greater discretion in resolving statutory ambiguity.”). 9 467 U.S. 837 (1984). 10 The Court stated, First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation
    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And
    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 6 Number 2 Spring Article 11 May 2020 Vol. 6, no. 2: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 6 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 1976-1977 Denver Journal OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1977 INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 TAXING BoYcorrs AND BRIBES ........................................... G. C . Hufbauer J. G. Taylor 589 The authors examine the tax penalty provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Export Administration Act Amendments of 1977 in relation to U.S. persons who "participate in or cooperate with" international boycotts or bribery. The article discusses the various types of international boycotts and the penalty, computational, and reporting requirements imposed on participants as clarified by the Treasury Guidelines and Revenue Proce- dures. The authors conclude with a discussion of the novelty, complexity, and potential impact of the legislation. TAKING SIDES: AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB BOYCOTT ............................................ John M . Tate Ralph B. Lake 613 The current legislative scheme in opposition to the Arab boycott is generally directed against the Arab League countries' secondary and tertiary, indirect forms of boycott.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Economic Way Of
    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
    [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]
  • Description of Provisions Listed for Further Hearings by the Committee on Finance On
    [COMMITTEE PEINT] DESCRIPTION OF PROVISIONS LISTED FOR FURTHER HEARINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON JULY 20, 21, AND 22, 1976 Prepaeed for the Use of the COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION JULY 19, 1976 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-376 WASHINGTON : 1976 JCS-30-76 •/[ TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee I. Introduction 1 II. Description of Provisions : 2 1. At-Risk Limitation for Limited Partners (see. 210 of the bill) 2 2. Refunds of Unutilized Investment Tax Credits (sec. 802 of the bill) 4 3. Expiring Investment and Foreign Tax Credits (sec. 803 of the bill) ,5 4. Investment Credit in the Case of Vessels Constructed from Capital Construction Funds (sec. 806 of the I»ill) (^ 5. Foreign Trusts Having One or More U.S. Beneficiaries To Be Taxed Currently to Grantor (sec. 1011 of the bill) 7 6. Investment in U.S. Property by Controlled Foreign Corpora- tions (sec. 1021 of the bill) 7 7. Exclusion from Subpart F of Certain Earnings of Insurance Companies (sec. 1023 of the bill) 8 8. Shipping Profits of Foreign Corporations (sec. 1024 of the bill) .____ 10 9. Limitation on Definition of Tax Haven Income for Agricultural Products (sec. 1025 of the bill) 11 10. Repeal of the Per-Country Foreign Tax Credit Limitation ( sec. 1031 of the bill) 12 11. Recapture of Foreign Losses (sec. 1032 of the bill) 13 12. Transitional Carryback of Foreign Taxes on Oil and Gas Extraction Income (sec. 103.> of the bill) : 15 13. Transitional Rule for Recapture of Foreign Oil-Related Losses (sec.
    [Show full text]
  • International Tax Policy for the 21St Century
    NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 147 The NFTC Foreign Income Project: International Tax Policy for the 21st Century Part Two Relief of International Double Taxation NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 148 NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 149 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit Chapter 1 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit I. Introduction The United States’ current system for taxing international income was creat- ed during the period from 1918 through 1928.1 From the introduction of 149 the income tax (in 1913 for individuals and in 1909 for corporations) until 1918, foreign taxes were deducted in the same way as any other business expense.2 In 1918, the United States enacted the foreign tax credit,3 a unilat- eral step taken fundamentally to redress the unfairness of “double taxation” of foreign-source income. By way of contrast, until the 1940s, the United Kingdom allowed a credit only for foreign taxes paid within the British 1 For further description and analysis of this formative period of U.S. international income tax policy, see Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O’Hear, The ‘Original Intent’ of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L.J. 1021, 1026 (1997) [hereinafter “Graetz & O’Hear”]. The material in this chapter is largely taken from this source. 2 The reasoning behind the international tax aspects of the 1913 Act is difficult to discern from the historical sources. One scholar has concluded “it is quite likely that Congress gave little or no thought to the effect of the Revenue Act of 1913 on the foreign income of U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactions of High-Income Taxpayers to Major Tax Legislation
    National Tax Journal, December 2016, 69 (4), 935–964 https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2016.4.10 REACTIONS OF HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS TO MAJOR TAX LEGISLATION Gerald Auten, David Splinter, and Susan Nelson This paper examines how high-income taxpayers reacted to major tax legislation that affected incentives for realizations of capital gains, the form of compensation, type of investments, and the choice of organizational form for businesses. The Tax Reform Act of 1969, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Omnibus Budget Reconcili- ation Act of 1993, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 are considered. The paper summarizes prior research and provides new evidence of short-term and longer-term responses of high-income taxpayers. The analysis uses individual and business tax return information to examine some of the most salient features of each of these laws. Examining the responses to prior reforms can inform discussion of the effects of future tax reform proposals. Keywords: tax reform, tax avoidance, income shifting JEL Codes: H24, H25, H26 I. INTRODUCTION ver the last 50 years, several landmark tax laws targeted high-income taxpayers in Oways that affected incentives for earning and realizing income. Some of these laws raised tax rates for high-income taxpayers while others reduced them. Some broadened the tax base by repealing tax expenditures or loopholes that fostered tax avoidance, while others narrowed it by creating new or more generous deductions and exclusions. Top tax rates on ordinary income changed significantly seven times over this 50-year period (Figure 1). Top tax rates on long-term capital gains changed even more often.
    [Show full text]
  • Subject Index
    SUBJECT INDEX A Construction of facilities, research and Page Page development, etc., appropriation Accounts, Bureau of, appropriation for 385, authorization. 368 399, 872 Western Interstate Nuclear Board, Adams, President John Quincy, bust of, cooperation 986 loan to Smithsonian Institution 2192 Aeronautics and Space Administration Administrative Conference of the United Authorization Act, 1970, National, States, appropriation for 878 Amendment, employees and former Adoption of Child, District of Columbia, employees, reporting requirements.- 373 consent of natural father 1086 Aeronautics and Space Administration Adult Education, National Advisory Authorization Act, 1971, National— 368 Council on, establishment 163 Aeronautics and Space Council, National, Adult Education Act: appropriation for 388, 1454 Amendment, allocation of funds, new Aeronautical and Space Sciences Com­ formula 1669 mittee, hearings on space program Appropriation for effecting provisions 35, benefits, printing of additional copies. 2186 36, 802 African Countries, sale of military equip­ Citation of title 159 ment to, ceiling 2053 National Advisory Council on Adult Age, minimum voting 318 Education, establishment 163 Age, Voting, Virgin Islands, establishment. 978 Secondary school curiiculum, addition Age Discrimination in Employment Act of to program 160 1967, appropriation for effecting pro­ Adult Education Act of 1966, appropria­ visions 25 tion for effecting provisions 35, 36, 802 Aged: Advisory Commission on Intergovern­ Food stamp program, delivered pre­ mental
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Covid-19 Tax Update As of April 17, 2020 by Luke T
    COVID-19 TAX UPDATE AS OF APRIL 17, 2020 BY LUKE T. TASHJIAN & EVA V. KLIEGMAN There have been various state and federal tax law changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Some of the changes have been made via administrative pronouncement or by executive order and other changes have been statutory in nature. Following is a general discussion of some of the key Connecticut and Federal changes as of April 17, 2020. Federal Relief: The primary statute that has been enacted to assist taxpayers is the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell on March 19, 2020 as Senate Bill 3548 and signed into law by President Donald Trump as Public Law 116-136 on March 27, 2020 (the “CARES Act”). In addition, the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, was introduced by Representative Nita Lowey as House Resolution 6201 on March 11, 2020, and it was signed into law by President Donald Trump on March 18, 2020 as Public Law 116-127 (the “FFCRA Act”). The FFCRA Act mandates paid employee leave in certain circumstances and offers employers a corresponding tax credit, as discussed below. On March 13, 2020, President Donald Trump also issued proclamation 9994, declaring the COVID-19 pandemic a national emergency, under federal law, including the Robert. T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. The Emergency Declaration triggered the application of certain federal tax statutes, including Section 139 of the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the Emergency Declaration instructed the Secretary of the Treasury “to provide relief from tax deadlines to Americans who have been adversely affected by the COVID-19 emergency, as appropriate, pursuant to 26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]