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