Court Procedure Matters Archives - Page 21 of 34

Court Procedure Matters

Deference Principles in Tax Cases and the Unique Challenges of Auer Deference

by Jeffrey M. Glassman and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 28, 2016 | Appellate Courts, Court Procedure Matters, Uncategorized

The Federal Lawyer recently published an article we wrote which discusses how deference principles are applied in tax cases. The article can be accessed here. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 562 U.S. 44, 55 (2011), confirmed that tax laws are subject to the same deference principles as other federal laws.

In general, these deference principles can be grouped into three levels, commonly referred to as Chevron, Skidmore, and Auer deference. Chevron is often regarded as the strongest level of deference, and can apply where Congress explicitly leaves a gap for an agency to fill and the agency intends for its interpretation to have the force of law. Tax regulations can be entitled to Chevron deference. Skidmore deference, which is limited to an interpretation’s persuasive power, can apply to other IRS interpretations that are thoroughly considered, well-reasoned, and consistent with earlier and later IRS pronouncements. Skidmore deference, which is generally considered a lesser level of deference than Chevron, can apply to revenue rulings and revenue procedures. The last level of deference, Auer, is a special level of deference that can apply when an agency interprets its own regulations. In Auer v. Robbins, U.S. 452, 461 (1997), the Supreme Court accorded deference to an agency’s amicus brief. The theory behind Auer is that an agency is uniquely positioned to interpret any ambiguity in its own regulations. Courts have increasingly placed limitations on Auer and its continuing validity has been questioned by sitting members of the Supreme Court.

When we wrote the article, Justice Scalia was the leading member of the Supreme Court advocating for the abandonment of Auer. But he was not alone. Other justices have openly either written about the risks of Auer or indicated a willingness to reconsider the principles of Auer. In addition, all current justices have either written or joined in an opinion that casts serious doubts about Auer or expressed an indication to revisit the deference standard in an appropriate case. With Justice Scalia’s passing, it remains to be seen whether the Court will continue to seek such a case. But considering the increasing wave of limitations being placed on Auer, it would not come as a surprise if further limitations were issued.

IRS Updates Appeals Procedures for Tax Court Cases

by Robin L. Greenhouse and McDermott Will & Emery | Mar 25, 2016 | Alternative Dispute Resolution, Court Procedure Matters, IRS Appeals, IRS Guidance, Settlements, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On March 23, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Rev. Proc. 2016-22, 2016-15 IRB 1, which clarifies and describes the practices for the administrative appeals process in cases docketed in the Tax Court. The stated purpose of the revenue procedure is to facilitate effective utilization of appeals and to achieve earlier development and resolution of Tax Court cases.

Previously, the procedures for the appeals process of Tax Court cases was contained in Rev. Proc. 87-24, 1987-1 C.B. 720. In October 2015, the IRS released a proposed revenue procedure updating the rules and requesting public comments. Three substantive comments were received and considered by the IRS, resulting in changes to the proposed revenue procedure. Rev. Proc. 2016-22 states that some of the suggestions that were not adopted may be addressed in other IRS guidance materials.

The general rule followed by the IRS is that all cases docketed in the Tax Court that have not previously been considered by IRS Appeals will be transferred to Appeals unless the taxpayer notifies IRS counsel that it wants to forego settlement consideration by Appeals. This rule is subject to certain exceptions, most notably if the case has been designated for litigation by the IRS. The revenue procedure also provides that “[i]n limited circumstances, a docketed case or issue will not be referred if Division Counsel or a higher level Counsel official determines that referral is not in the interest of sound tax administration.” Although no definition is provided, examples are provided of: (1) a case involving a significant issue common to other cases in litigation for which the IRS maintains a consistent position; or (2) cases related to a case over which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction. Referral to IRS Appeals will generally occur within 30 days of the case becoming at issue in the Tax Court, which can be either the date the Answer is filed by the IRS or a Reply (if required) is filed by the taxpayer.

The revenue procedure clarifies, and limits, the role of IRS counsel when a case is referred to Appeals. Unlike Rev. Proc. 87-24, the new revenue procedure provides that Appeals has sole discretion to determine whether IRS counsel may participate in any settlement conference and will consider input from the taxpayer on this point. It also clarifies that when a case is forwarded to Appeals for consideration, “Appeals has the sole authority to resolve the case through settlement until the case is returned to Counsel.” In the past, taxpayers were concerned about the ability of IRS counsel to disrupt a settlement reached with Appeals. If a settlement is reached with Appeals, IRS counsel’s involvement is ministerial in that counsel should only review any decision document signed by the taxpayer for accuracy and completeness before signing the decision document on behalf of the IRS and filing it with the Tax Court.

The new revenue procedure should also be a welcome development for estate tax cases given that there is no statutory provision to extend the [...]

Continue Reading

IRS Loses Summary Judgment In Mylan Case

by Chelsea Hess and Kevin Spencer | Mar 16, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, Trial Courts, Uncategorized

On March 10, 2016, Tax Court Judge Laro denied the Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) motion for summary judgment in Mylan’s challenge of the IRS’s determination that approximately $372 million should be treated as ordinary income. See Mylan Inc. and Subsidiaries v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C.M. 2016-45. In its Tax Court petition, Mylan seeks a redetermination of tax deficiencies related to proceeds from the sale of “all substantial rights” in a patent that Mylan treated as capital gain. The IRS recharacterized the income as ordinary income received under a sublicense of patent rights.

Mylan entered into a number of agreements, including a 2008 agreement in the form of an “exclusive license,” that Mylan contends effectuated a sale of patent rights and entitles it to capital gain treatment. In deciding the motion for summary judgment, the Tax Court considered whether the tax treatment should be determined based upon Mylan’s licensing agreements. The IRS argued that pursuant to Commissioner v. Danielson, 378 F.2d 771,775 (3d Cir. 1967), taxpayers are bound by the terms of their agreements. Mylan argued that Danielson does not apply because the Third Circuit has previously examined not only the terms of the contracts but also the intent of the parties in determining whether “all substantial rights” under a patent were transferred, relying on such authorities as Merck & Co. v. Smith, 261 F.2d 162 (3d Cir. 1958) and E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. United States, 432 F.2d 1052 (3d Cir. 1970).

The Tax Court, however, determined that there is no inconsistency between Danielson, Merck and E.I. du Pont:

We do not see the inconsistency here. In Danielson, a taxpayer sought to change the tax consequences of a transaction by challenging the validity of the underlying contract’s terms, specifically, allocation of consideration between the sale of stock and the covenant not to compete, because the taxpayer believed these terms did not reflect the agreement of the parties. In Merck and E.I. du Pont de Nemours the taxpayers did not seek to alter or challenge the agreements in question. Instead, the taxpayers disagreed with the Commissioner’s interpretation of those contracts and characterization of the related payments for tax purposes. Here, unlike in Danielson, petitioners do not seek to change the tax consequences of the transaction by challenging the underlying agreements and reforming the contractual terms. On the record before us, the facts here resemble those in Merck and E.I. du Pont de Nemours. The question presented here is a question of proper tax characterization of the proceeds of valid and enforceable contracts, and we are mindful that the Commissioner and taxpayers often disagree on this issue.

The Tax Court found that there are issues of material fact in dispute, and denied the IRS’s motion for summary judgment.

Now that the Tax Court has denied summary disposition of the case, the parties will litigate the capital vs. ordinary tax treatment of transfers of patents. We will report back as developments occur in this hotly contested area [...]

Continue Reading

LB&I Practice Units: Know Your EOI Programs

by McDermott Will & Emery | Feb 10, 2016 | Court Procedure Matters, IRS Audits, IRS Guidance, Transfer Pricing Resource, Uncategorized

On January 20, 2016, the Large Business and International (LB&I) Division released a Practice Unit entitled Overview of Exchange Information Programs and Types of EOI Exchanges, defining and describing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Exchange of Information (EOI) programs. These EOI Practice Units specify what types of exchanges are covered by EOI programs and what types of information the IRS can seek through each type of EOI exchange.

The IRS breaks down the avenues for international information exchange into several categories:

Specific Requests involve requests for information pertaining to a specific taxpayer under examination or investigation for a specific period.
Spontaneous Exchanges involve the transmission of taxpayer information by one member of an EOI agreement that is deemed potentially of interest to a foreign partner even though no specific requests have been initiated by the foreign partner.
Automatic Exchanges involve the transmission of taxpayer information that foreign partners have agreed to exchange on a regular and systematic basis without individualized specific requests. The most common example includes information relating to dividends, interest, rents, royalties, salaries and annuities earned in one partner country by residents of the other partner country.
Industry-Wide Exchanges involve the sharing of trends, policies and operating practices in a particular industry or economic sector and do not implicate specific taxpayer information.
The Simultaneous Examination Program coordinates strategies and the development of technical issues between the United States and a foreign partner if it is determined a common interest exists between the respective taxing authorities. These discussions are intended to facilitate the exchange of relevant taxpayer information with the foreign partner in furtherance of the separate independent examinations of a taxpayer by each jurisdiction.
Joint Audits take place when the United States and one or more of its foreign partners collaborate to conduct a single examination of a taxpayer or a related taxpayer within their jurisdictions.
The Simultaneous Criminal Investigation Program operates through the EOI provisions of bilateral tax agreements and fosters the coordination of separate criminal investigations conducted concurrently by the United States and the foreign partner.
The Mutual Legal Assistance Program relates to an agreement that authorizes a partner country to secure evidence for use by the requesting country in criminal judicial proceedings of the taxpayer.
The Mutual Collection Assistance Request Program is intended to utilize the collection assistance provisions of tax treaties, enabling one partner state to collect taxes covered by the treaty on behalf of the other contracting state. These collection provisions appear in a limited number of current United States treaties.

The Practice Units provide a short general overview of each method and—of particular usefulness—describe what government office or department is responsible for executing requests in each category. Thus, the Practice Units may be a good “first line of defense” for information-gathering when you believe the IRS is pursuing or has received an international EOI request related to your client.

In future posts, we will discuss how these tools are utilized in practice, [...]

Continue Reading