I’m currently at the #SEALS2018 conference in Ft. Lauderdale, but I wanted to quickly note that the opinion of the 9th Circuit panel in Altera Corp. v. Commissioner was withdrawn today. This follows the replacement of Judge Reinhardt, who passed away on March 29, with Judge Graber. Recall that the July 24 opinion in this important case reflected a 2-1 decision, with the late judge in the majority, as Christopher Walker and others had noted. (For my previous coverage of Altera, see here and here.)
A screenshot of the court’s order appears below. It will be interesting to see what happens after the new panel confers!
In a 2-1 opinion, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has reversed the U.S. Tax Court in Altera v. Commissioner. (I don’t have a link yet to the opinion because it just came out this morning, but will add it as a comment when I do.) The decision is great news for IRS rulemaking: the Court of Appeals upheld a Treasury regulation in the face of a procedural challenge that alleged that “although Treasury solicited public comments, it did not adequately consider and respond to those responses, rendering the regulations arbitrary and capricious under State Farm.” Altera, slip. op. at 27. The court found that Treasury’s approach to the regulation (a cost-sharing regulation under Code section 482) satisfied State Farm‘s requirements. Id. at 37. The Court of Appeals also accorded the regulation Chevron deference. Id. at 46.
In my view, this is the right outcome. (Full disclosure: Susan Morse and Stephen Shay spearheaded an amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit in favor of the Commissioner, in which I joined, along with Dick Harvey, Ruth Mason, and Bret Wells.) Treasury did consider and respond to the comments it received on the regulation; it simply had a different approach to the substance of the regulation than the taxpayers commenting did. The Court of Appeals explains:
“In short, the objectors were arguing that the evidence they cited—showing that unrelated parties do not share employee stock compensation costs—proved that Treasury’s commensurate with income analysis did not comport with the arm’s length standard. Thus, the thrust of the objection was that Treasury misinterpreted § 482. But that is a separate question—one properly addressed in the Chevron analysis. That commenters disagreed with Treasury’s interpretation of the law does not make the rulemaking process defective.”
“Because the Commissioner does not contest the applicability of the APA or Chevron in this context, this case does not require us to decide the broader questions of the precise contours of the application of APA to the Commissioner’s administration of the tax system or the continued vitality of the theory of tax exceptionalism.”
Id. at 25 n.5. Dan Shaviro has blogged about the decision on Start Making Sense, noting that “the Chevron standard for reviewing administrative regulations . . . may well be on the Supreme Court’s chopping block in the near future.”
I would expect more coverage of the Altera decision soon. For prior Surly coverage, see here.
On February 28, Prof. Stephanie McMahonfrom the University of Cincinnati College of Law gave a faculty workshop at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. She presented her paper titled “Tax as Part of a Broken Budget: Good Taxes are Good Cause Enough.” The thesis of the paper is that Treasury regulations are needed to effectuate the statutory tax laws consistent with Congress’s budgeting expectations, and that given the importance of the revenue raised by taxes to the functioning of the U.S. federal government, tax regulations should be excused from the Administrative Procedure Act’s pre-promulgation notice-and-comment process under the APA’s “good cause” exception. The paper thus tackles two arguments that Prof. Kristin Hickman has advanced in her work: post-promulgation notice and comment is insufficient for tax regulations, and there is no reason for “tax exceptionalism” in administrative procedures. Stephanie’s paper also contains a detailed explanation of the tax legislative process.
I previously wrote about the fact that Treasury and the IRS were going to essentially stop issuing guidance in light of the Trump administration’s one-in-two-out rule for regulations.[fn1]
There seems to be some movement on this front. Yesterday, Commissioner Koskinen announced that the IRS was set to begin issuing “subregulatory” guidance again. He didn’t define what he meant by subregulatory, but it probably includes revenue procedures, notices, and revenue rulings, at least. (Interestingly enough, the Tax Notes reporting doesn’t mention revenue rulings,[fn2] while the BNA reporting does. I don’t know if that difference is accidental, or if the two organizations are interpreting differently what Commissioner Koskinen means by subregulatory.) Continue reading “Update on the Future of Treasury Regulations”→
On my previous post talking about the the IRS’s announcement that it was putting a moratorium on issuing new regulations and formal guidance, a commenter asked if it was such an odd thing for a new Administration to temporarily pause guidance. After all, who wants to issue guidance before the new Administration’s people are in place and agenda is set, lest the new Administration change its priorities and positions in the coming months?
I didn’t remember any such (formal, at least) pause in 2009, but, when I got home, I decided to look back a few years. I looked at new regulations and revenue rulings in the first month of the Obama, George W. Bush, Clinton, and Reagan presidencies (I didn’t bother with George H.W. Bush, because that was a Republican to Republican switch). Also, because we don’t know how long the current limitations on regulations and other guidance will last, I also expanded my search of revenue rulings for the first three months of the new administrations.[fn1] Continue reading “Past Moratoria on Tax Guidance and Regulations(?)”→
Today’s Tax Notesreports[fn1] that the IRS has announced that it will not release pretty much any new formal guidance (including revenue rulings and revenue procedures) for the foreseeable future.[fn2]