PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES
Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2017 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Washington law review - Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919, 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:92 ; year:2017 ; number:3 ; pages:1317-1405 |
| Links: |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC199680958X |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a2200265 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC199680958X | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230715071137.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 171125s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a PQ20171125 |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC199680958X | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X | ||
| 035 | |a (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 | ||
| 035 | |a (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 340 |q DE-600 |
| 100 | 0 | |a Stephanie Hunter McMahon |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2017 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Enforcement | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Tax controversies | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Federal legislation | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Washington law review |d Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 |g 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 |w (DE-627)16724891X |w (DE-600)435060-1 |w (DE-576)015589986 |x 0043-0617 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:92 |g year:2017 |g number:3 |g pages:1317-1405 |
| 856 | 4 | 2 | |u https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-JUR | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2041 | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_2062 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 92 |j 2017 |e 3 |h 1317-1405 | ||
| author_variant |
s h m shm |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:00430617:2017----::refreetiiaineddotx |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2017 |
| publishDate |
2017 |
| allfields |
PQ20171125 (DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DE-600 Stephanie Hunter McMahon verfasserin aut PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation Enthalten in Washington law review Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 (DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 0043-0617 nnns volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 AR 92 2017 3 1317-1405 |
| spelling |
PQ20171125 (DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DE-600 Stephanie Hunter McMahon verfasserin aut PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation Enthalten in Washington law review Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 (DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 0043-0617 nnns volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 AR 92 2017 3 1317-1405 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
PQ20171125 (DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DE-600 Stephanie Hunter McMahon verfasserin aut PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation Enthalten in Washington law review Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 (DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 0043-0617 nnns volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 AR 92 2017 3 1317-1405 |
| allfieldsGer |
PQ20171125 (DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DE-600 Stephanie Hunter McMahon verfasserin aut PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation Enthalten in Washington law review Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 (DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 0043-0617 nnns volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 AR 92 2017 3 1317-1405 |
| allfieldsSound |
PQ20171125 (DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 340 DE-600 Stephanie Hunter McMahon verfasserin aut PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES 2017 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation Enthalten in Washington law review Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 (DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 0043-0617 nnns volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 AR 92 2017 3 1317-1405 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Washington law review 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Washington law review 92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405 volume:92 year:2017 number:3 pages:1317-1405 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation |
| dewey-raw |
340 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Washington law review |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2017-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
16724891X |
| dewey-sort |
3340 |
| id |
OLC199680958X |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC199680958X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230715071137.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">171125s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20171125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC199680958X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stephanie Hunter McMahon</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Enforcement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tax controversies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal legislation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Washington law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919</subfield><subfield code="g">92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)16724891X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)435060-1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015589986</subfield><subfield code="x">0043-0617</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:92</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1317-1405</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">92</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">1317-1405</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon |
| spellingShingle |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon ddc 340 misc Enforcement misc Tax controversies misc Federal legislation PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| authorStr |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)16724891X |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
340 - Law |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0043-0617 |
| topic_title |
340 DE-600 PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES Enforcement Tax controversies Federal legislation |
| topic |
ddc 340 misc Enforcement misc Tax controversies misc Federal legislation |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 340 misc Enforcement misc Tax controversies misc Federal legislation |
| topic_browse |
ddc 340 misc Enforcement misc Tax controversies misc Federal legislation |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Washington law review |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
16724891X |
| dewey-tens |
340 - Law |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Washington law review |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)16724891X (DE-600)435060-1 (DE-576)015589986 |
| title |
PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC199680958X (DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X (PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610 (KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures |
| title_full |
PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| author_sort |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon |
| journal |
Washington law review |
| journalStr |
Washington law review |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2017 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1317 |
| author_browse |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon |
| container_volume |
92 |
| class |
340 DE-600 |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Stephanie Hunter McMahon |
| dewey-full |
340 |
| title_sort |
pre-enforcement litigation needed for taxing procedures |
| title_auth |
PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| abstract |
Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. |
| abstractGer |
Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-JUR GBV_ILN_2041 GBV_ILN_2062 |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES |
| url |
https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| ppnlink |
16724891X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| up_date |
2024-07-04T01:26:15.978Z |
| _version_ |
1803609834499604480 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a2200265 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC199680958X</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230715071137.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">171125s2017 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">PQ20171125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC199680958X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)GBVOLC199680958X</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(PRQ)proquest_journals_19602792610</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(KEY)0012302120170000092000301317preenforcementlitigationneededfortaxingprocedures</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">340</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Stephanie Hunter McMahon</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">PRE-ENFORCEMENT LITIGATION NEEDED FOR TAXING PROCEDURES</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2017</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Courts have opened tax guidance to procedural attack. Consequently, taxpayers who are found to owe tax may challenge the validity of the guidance implementing the tax if the procedure used by the Treasury Department in adopting the guidance failed to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, in particular, with notice-and-comment. This increased willingness to consider tax guidance's procedural defects offers little to most taxpayers unless they are also given a better means to raise procedural challenges. Under current law and in most circumstances, generally, taxpayers can bring a challenge only after they have been found to owe taxes in an audit and completed an internal IRS appeal process. This delay in the ability to challenge guidance reduces the likelihood taxpayers will challenge the procedure used to create a particular rule. Moreover, delayed litigation requires taxpayers to plan their affairs under the umbrella of guidance that might not survive a procedural challenge. To the extent procedural challenges are accepted in the tax context, this Article argues Congress should narrowly repeal its prior limitations on pre-enforcement litigation of those procedures. Everyone affected by the guidance should be permitted to litigate procedural questions for a period of time post-promulgation without the necessity of being found to owe taxes. This narrow exception would increase the certainty of tax guidance and encourage greater public participation in the guidance-formation process in a way that is sensitive to the fact that litigation imposes costs on the Treasury Department.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Enforcement</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Tax controversies</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Federal legislation</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Washington law review</subfield><subfield code="d">Seattle, Wash. : Univ. of Washington, School of Law, 1919</subfield><subfield code="g">92(2017), 3, Seite 1317-1405</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)16724891X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)435060-1</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015589986</subfield><subfield code="x">0043-0617</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:92</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2017</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1317-1405</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://search.proquest.com/docview/1960279261</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-JUR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2041</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2062</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">92</subfield><subfield code="j">2017</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="h">1317-1405</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4000416 |