On April 4, 2017, QinetiQ U.S. Holdings, Inc. petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit’s decision that the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 (APA) does not apply to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Notices of Deficiency. We previously wrote about the case (QinetiQ U.S. Holdings, Inc. v. Commissioner, No. 15-2192) here, here, here and here. To refresh, the taxpayer had argued in the US Tax Court that the Notice of Deficiency issued by the IRS, which contained a one-sentence reason for the deficiency determination, violated the APA because it was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” The APA provides a general rule that a reviewing court that is subject to the APA must hold unlawful and set aside an agency action unwarranted by the facts to the extent the facts are subject to trial de novo by the reviewing court. The Tax Court disagreed, emphasizing that it was well settled that the court is not subject to the APA and holding that the Notice of Deficiency adequately notified the taxpayer that a deficiency had been determined under relevant case law. The taxpayer appealed to the 4th Circuit, which ultimately affirmed the Tax Court’s decision. (more…)
We previously posted on Day One of the 2nd International Conference on Taxpayer Rights in Vienna, Austria. Below, we summarize the panels and issues discussed on Day Two.
Four panels were held on March 14: (1) Penalties and General Anti-Avoidance Rules; (2) The Role of Intergovernmental Actors in Furthering and Protecting Taxpayer Rights: A Conversation; (3) Building Trust I: Transforming Cultures of Tax Agencies; and (4) Building Trust II: Safeguards on Tax Agency Power.
Penalties and General Anti-Avoidance Rules
This panel looked at current research on the use of penalties and general anti-avoidance rules in tax administration from the perspectives of legal and economic theory and taxpayer behavior. Studies were discussed that found that delayed feedback on tax audit often results in increased tax compliance but reduces the perception of procedural fairness and diminishes trust in the taxing authorities. Participants in the studies viewed receiving delayed feedback and increasing the probability of audits and the potential for more fines. One conclusion presented was that the delay resulted in longer periods of uncertainty and may yield higher levels of honesty in the short term, but might undermine tax compliance in the long term. (more…)