On April 1, 2022, the US Tax Court announced that Special Trial Judge (STJ) Daniel A. Guy has retired, effective March 31, 2022. STJ Guy served the Tax Court in various roles for more than 30 years, the last 10 in the capacity of STJ. He was recently honored with the J. Edgar Murdock Award for his distinguished service to the Tax Court. McDermott wishes STJ Guy the best in his post-Tax Court endeavors.
On March 23, 2022, the US Tax Court announced new proposed rules for practicing before it. The Court proposed three new rules, amendments to existing rules and changes to conform the existing rules to various forms. The proposed changes also reflect the Court’s move toward conformity with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
OVERVIEW OF THE NEW PROPOSED RULES
The new rules include Rule 63, Rule 92 and Rule 152. Rule 63 provides rules to parties seeking to intervene in a Court proceeding who have an unconditional right and a conditional right to intervene by a federal statute.
Rule 92 provides rules to identify and certify an administrative record in certain actions. The explanation to the proposed rule states that proposed Rule 92 is meant,
[T]o fill a gap in the Court’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Although the Court has longstanding Rules governing the submission of the administrative record in declaratory judgment cases, see Title XXI of the Court’s Rules, the Court has not adopted a rule of procedure or a uniform process governing the submission of the administrative record to the Court in other actions where judicial review is normally limited to the administrative record or where judicial review requires an examination of the administrative record and other relevant evidence, as appropriate.
Rule 152 provides a uniform rule for the Court to accept briefs filed by amicus curiae. The explanation to the rule states that proposed Rule 152 is a corollary to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Rule 7(o) of the local rules for the US District Court for the District of Columbia. We previously discussed amicus briefs in the Court, and this change is a welcome development to provide specific procedures in the area.
NOTABLE REVISIONS TO EXISTING RULES
Proposed Rule 21, Service of Papers, makes service of pleadings through the Court’s electronic system the default method for serving papers upon the Court and opposing parties.
Proposed Rule 23, Form and Style of Papers, omits all prefixes (e.g., Mr., Ms.) from pleadings. The amendment would also permit the use of a typed written name on a pleading that is filed electronically with the Court to constitute that person’s signature.
Proposed Rule 70, Scope of Discovery, would add the following rule:
Discovery must be proportional to the needs of the case, considering the importance of the issues at stake in the action, the amount in controversy, the parties’ relative access to relevant information, the parties’ resources, the importance of the discovery in resolving the issues, and whether the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.
Additionally, the amendment proposes that any information withheld under a claim of privilege must be expressly made and describe the nature of the documents, communications, etc., not produced to enable the other party the ability to assess the privilege claim. The rule also adds provisions for the return of privileged documents that were inadvertently disclosed to the opposing [...]
Continue Reading
Tax penalties are always a hot topic here. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has a large arsenal when it comes to grounds for asserting penalties on income tax deficiencies, ranging from the common 20% penalty under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6662(a) to higher penalties ranging from 40% (gross valuation or basis misstatements and economic substance) to 75% (fraud).
However, before the IRS can assert most penalties against taxpayers, it must comply with the procedural requirement in Code Section 6751(b): That the “initial determination” to assert the penalty be “personally approved (in writing) by the immediate supervisor of the individual making such determination.” As the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained in Chai v. Commissioner, US Congress imposed this requirement because it “believes that penalties should only be imposed where appropriate and not as a bargaining chip” and “[t]he statute was meant to prevent IRS agents from threatening unjustified penalties to encourage taxpayers to settle.”
Over the past several years, there has been substantial litigation over the proper interpretation and application of Code Section 6751(b). The US Tax Court’s recent opinion in Oxbow Bend, LLC v. Commissioner is the latest development. In Oxbow Bend, the Tax Court rejected the taxpayer’s position that the “initial determination” was made on the date that the examining agent prepared a penalty lead sheet reflecting her recommendation to assert penalties and stated in a telephone conference with the taxpayer’s representative on that same day that penalties were being considered. Approximately three months later, the examining agent’s supervisor approved the penalty lead sheet, and the IRS issued a Notice of Final Partnership Administrative Adjustment asserting the penalties. The Tax Court, relying on its prior precedent, held that the word “determination”:
Thus, under the Tax Court’s analysis, an “initial determination” can only be made in a “written” document that is provided to the taxpayer.
Oxbow Bend is a memorandum opinion of the Tax Court and, therefore, is limited to its facts and technically not precedential, as we have discussed in the past. However, memorandum opinions are often cited by litigants, and the Tax Court does not disregard these types of opinions lightly. One has to wonder whether, under different facts where an examining agent makes an explicit oral statement to a taxpayer that penalties “will” be asserted, courts might reach a different result given Congress’s express intent that examining agents should not threaten penalties and use them as a bargaining chip for settlement purposes. Further, Code Section 6751(b) expressly requires that the supervisory approval be “in writing” but contains a written requirement for purposes of the [...]
Continue Reading
The fallout from taxpayer challenges to the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) “reportable transaction” regime continues. On March 21, 2022, the district court in CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS ruled in favor of the taxpayer, vacating Notice 2016-66 and ordering the IRS to return all documents and information produced pursuant to Notice 2016-66 to taxpayers and material advisors.
We previously posted about the Supreme Court of the United States’ decision in CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, which allowed a pre-enforcement challenge to the IRS’s reportable transaction regime. On remand, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court, relying on Mann Construction, Inc. v. United States, explained that the “Sixth Circuit’s analysis in Mann Construction is binding on this Court and applies equally to the arguments advanced by the IRS regarding Notice 2016-66 in this case.” The court dealt the IRS another blow, holding that Notice 2016-66 had to also be set aside as an agency action that was arbitrary and capricious: “[s]imply including cases in the administrative record that suggest certain tax structures could be abusively employed is not synonymous with examining relevant facts and data in connection with issuing the Notice.” In determining the appropriate relief, the court rejected the IRS’s request to limit vacatur of the Notice to CIC, explaining that “vacating the Notice in its entirety is appropriate” and citing the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit’s prior statement that the IRS “do[es] not have a great history of complying with APA procedures, having claimed for several decades that their rules and regulations are exempt from those requirements” (See CIC Servs., LLC v. IRS, 925 F.3d 247, 258 (6th Cir. 2019) quoting Kristin E. Hickman & Gerald Kersa, Restoring the Lost Anti-Injunction Act, 103 Va. L. Rev. 1683, 1712-13 (2017)).
Practice Point: The assault on the IRS’s reportable transaction regime is far from over. We recently posted about the Sixth Circuit’s opinion in Mann Construction in which it held that Notice 2007-83, which required disclosure of listed transactions relating to certain employee benefit plans, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). APA challenges continue to expand to other IRS notices that bypassed the notice-and-comment requirement, including Notice 2017-10, which identifies certain syndicated conservation easement transactions as listed transactions subject to disclosure to the IRS. These developments will certainly have a significant impact on taxpayers and material advisors’ responsibilities as we move into the tax filing season.
The US Tax Court announced that former Judge Joel Gerber passed away on March 4, 2022. Judge Gerber retired from the Tax Court on July 16, 2020.
Prior to his appointment to the Tax Court, Judge Gerber spent several years working for the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in several cities around the country, including as Acting Chief Counsel. He was then appointed to the Tax Court in 1984, serving as Chief Judge from June 1, 2004, to May 31, 2006. Both before and after his appointment, Judge Gerber was a frequent participant in tax seminars and professional programs, including as a lecturer of law at Vanderbilt School of Law and the University of Miami School of Law Graduate Program.
We both knew Judge Gerber well during our time clerking at the Tax Court. He was always engaging and enjoyed talking about many things outside of tax. As the Tax Court’s announcement states: “Judge Gerber had a zest for life and was a humble, humorous, and unabashedly compassionate man who endeared himself to colleagues, employees, and all those fortunate enough to cross his path.”
On February 25, 2022, the US Tax Court announced that Judge Kathleen Kerrigan has been elected the new Chief Judge and will serve a two-year term beginning June 1, 2022. Judge Kerrigan will replace Chief Judge Maurice B. Foley, who has served in the role since June 1, 2018.
Judge Kerrigan was sworn into the Tax Court on May 4, 2012, for a term ending May 3, 2027. She earned her BS from Boston College in 1985 and her JD from the University of Notre Dame Law School in 1990. After law school, Judge Kerrigan served as Legislative Director for Congressman Richard E. Neal (D-MA) and then worked at Baker & Hostetler LLP in Washington, DC, from 1998 to 2005. From 2005 until her appointment to the Tax Court, she served as Tax Counsel for Senator John F. Kerry (D-MA).
The Tax Court is comprised of 19 presidentially appointed members, senior judges serving on recall and special trial judges. The judges travel nationwide to conduct trials in various designated places.
We are deeply saddened to report that retired US Tax Court Judge Robert P. Ruwe passed away on February 12, 2022. The Tax Court’s press release aptly stated: “Judge Ruwe was known for his extraordinary memory and grasp of tax law, and for the valuable experience that he brought to his work.”
We both clerked for Judge Ruwe in the early 2000s and will never forget his mentorship, dedication to service and love of tax. Judge Ruwe was fond of going for walks with his clerks, whether to talk about pending cases, sports, politics or family life. He also enjoyed giving history lessons during those walks, pointing out lesser-known monuments or memorials and sharing the background of various government buildings. Most walks also ended with the purchase of roses from street vendors to give to his wife MaryKay that evening. Judge Ruwe will be sorely missed.
Below are links with further information about Judge Ruwe and his legacy:
(Robert P. Ruwe, July 3, 1941 – February 12, 2022)
A substantial amount of our practice over the years has involved representing clients before the US Tax Court. And, we both started our tax careers clerking at the Tax Court and working on dozens of orders and opinions. Needless to say, we are familiar with the ins and outs of the Tax Court.
When it comes to the system of citation and style used by the Tax Court in its orders and opinions, it generally endorses use of the Bluebook. Our historic practice in filing documents with the Tax Court involved following the citation and style used in its orders and opinions, even where that citation and style varies from the Bluebook. Based on our clerkships and familiarity with many of the judges, we have always believed that clerks and judges prefer to read filings that use the same citation and style that is used in orders and opinions.
The Tax Court recently issued a new Citation and Style Manual (Manual) for the purpose of providing consistency within the Tax Court and with other federal courts. The policies and procedures in the Manual are intended to serve as guidance for documents issued by the Tax Court to the public, although each authoring judge retains discretion on citation and style. A couple of notable changes include the use of italics rather than underscoring for signals, citations and emphasis, as well as changes in the way Internal Revenue Code provisions and US Department of the Treasury Regulations are cited.
Practice Point: It may seem trivial to some but following the Manual is important for taxpayers and their representatives when filing documents in the Tax Court. Accordingly, we recommend reviewing the Manual and conforming your filings to the citation and style set forth therein. Making your points in filings in a clear, direct manner using the style recognized and accepted by the Tax Court will assist you in being successful in your Tax Court litigation.
On January 27, 2022, Supreme Court of the United States Justice Stephen Breyer formally announced his retirement, effective when the Supreme Court breaks for summer recess in June or July later this year—after his successor has been nominated and confirmed. Justice Breyer has served on the Supreme Court since 1994 and is the second-most senior justice after Justice Clarence Thomas.
Although Justice Breyer did not author a substantial number of tax opinions, the ones he did author are extremely important and include:
This post focuses on the Home Concrete case.
Home Concrete involved a challenge to the validity of US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) regulations issued during litigation that purported to overrule existing case law. In a 5-4 opinion authored by Justice Breyer, the Supreme Court rejected both the government’s statutory interpretation of the “substantial omission from gross income” exception to the normal three-year statute of limitations and the interpretation advanced in retroactive regulations issued during pending litigation. In doing so, the Court first applied principles of stare decisis and adhered to its prior opinion in Colony, Inc. v. Commissioner, which interpreted almost identical statutory language from the predecessor statute. It then held that, because it already interpreted the statute, there is no longer any different interpretation that is consistent with that precedent and available for adoption by the agency.
The history and procedural background are fascinating, and some of the issues highlighted in the case, but not directly decided, have been—and continue to be—developed. Further background on the case can be found in our 2012 Tax Executive article, “Home Concrete: The Story Behind the IRS’s Attempt to Overrule the Judiciary and Lessons for the Future.”
Practice Point: Home Concrete remains important today as there are several cases in the administrative and judicial pipeline involving challenges to tax reform and transfer pricing regulations. It is a must-read for any taxpayers who are currently, or are considering in the future, challenging the validity of Treasury regulations.
Andrew Roberson was one of the lawyers representing Home Concrete before the Supreme Court.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Chief Counsel is the chief legal advisor to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue on all matters pertaining to the interpretation, administration and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Laws. In this regard, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel is responsible for litigating cases in the US Tax Court. Such cases can arise from examinations conducted by different divisions within the IRS, such as the Large Business & International (LB&I), Small Business/Self Employed (SB/SE), Tax Exempt & Government Entities (TE/GE) and Wage & Investment (W&I) Divisions.
On January 21, 2022, the IRS Office of Chief Counsel announced plans to hire up to 200 additional attorneys to assist with litigation efforts. The announcement specifically notes that new hires are necessary “to help the agency combat syndicated conservation easements, abusive micro-captive insurance arrangements and other tax schemes.” They will also help the IRS manage its increasing caseload as part of its multiyear effort to combat what it believes are abusive schemes and to ensure that the appropriate taxes and penalties are paid. The new hires will be located around the country and focus on audits of complex corporate and partnership issues.
Additionally, there are a significant number of cases before the Tax Court that involve conservation easements and micro-captive insurance arrangements. The IRS’s attack on the donation of conservation easements is well known in the tax world. To date, the IRS has largely been successful in these cases based on non-valuation arguments that easement deeds do not comply with the applicable regulations. However, in the recent Hewitt v. Commissioner case, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit dealt a significant blow when it held that the IRS’s interpretation of Treas. Reg. § 1.170A-14(g)(6)(ii) was arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the US Department of the Treasury failed to respond to significant comments submitted during the notice-and-comment process. Many conservation easements are within the Eleventh Circuit’s jurisdiction and other appellate courts are expected to weigh in soon, which could result in the IRS and taxpayers proceeding to trial on valuation issues. Valuation issues are inherently fact intensive and will require the IRS to utilize substantial resources to litigate.
Practice Point: Much has been written about the trend of decreased enforcement by the IRS over the past several years, owing in part to decreased or stagnant funding from US Congress. Tax litigation, particularly in fact intensive cases involving valuation issues and transactions the IRS (but not necessarily the courts) deemed abusive, requires the expenditure of substantial resources by the IRS. The IRS has signaled that it is ready to reverse the trend. All IRS tax controversies start with the examination of the taxpayer’s positions on the return. We have seen an increase in IRS audit activity in the last year or so, especially with medium-sized businesses and high-net-worth individuals. The Chief Counsel is assembling his “army” to litigate positions developed during the examination. It’s a good time for taxpayers [...]
Continue Reading
Subscribe
