The Morass of the Anti-Injunction Act: a Review of the Cases and Major Issues

IF 0.9 Q2 LAW
Leslie M. Book, M. Ames
{"title":"The Morass of the Anti-Injunction Act: a Review of the Cases and Major Issues","authors":"Leslie M. Book, M. Ames","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3541312","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"As Congress gives the Internal Revenue Service more tasks to perform beyond its function of assessing and collecting taxes, courts, practitioners, and academics are struggling to apply the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) as the IRS promulgates procedures in the course of fulfilling new mandates. The AIA has its origins in the post-Civil War era when the federal government established new procedures ensuring the assessment and collection of taxes. It may seem odd an over 150-year old provision is fueling a growing number of contested and controversial disputes. Yet, the AIA has taken on renewed importance as courts consider challenges to tax regulations and guidance, fueled in part by the increasing importance of administrative law in issues of tax procedure and administration. \n \nFrom a normative perspective, we sympathize with legislative proposals providing additional ways to challenge regulations and other IRS guidance. We believe allowing an opportunity to bring good faith pre-enforcement challenges to regulations and guidance will enhance public confidence in the tax system and improve the quality of the rules in the first instance. Given congressional dysfunction and a low probability of any meaningful legislation addressing the issue (at least in the short term), courts, practitioners, and academics are left struggling with an increasingly complex and confused AIA jurisprudence. In this Article, which draws heavily on the AIA material in the Thompson Reuters treatise IRS Practice and Procedure where one of us is the lead successor author and the other a contributing author, we provide a discussion and analysis of the case law. \n \nPart I details the statutory provisions of the AIA and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). Part II discusses judicially created exceptions to applications of the AIA. Part III examines what constitutes “restraining the assessment or collection” of tax. Part IV explores what constitutes a “tax” for purposes of the AIA and DJA.","PeriodicalId":54058,"journal":{"name":"EJournal of Tax Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EJournal of Tax Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3541312","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

As Congress gives the Internal Revenue Service more tasks to perform beyond its function of assessing and collecting taxes, courts, practitioners, and academics are struggling to apply the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) as the IRS promulgates procedures in the course of fulfilling new mandates. The AIA has its origins in the post-Civil War era when the federal government established new procedures ensuring the assessment and collection of taxes. It may seem odd an over 150-year old provision is fueling a growing number of contested and controversial disputes. Yet, the AIA has taken on renewed importance as courts consider challenges to tax regulations and guidance, fueled in part by the increasing importance of administrative law in issues of tax procedure and administration. From a normative perspective, we sympathize with legislative proposals providing additional ways to challenge regulations and other IRS guidance. We believe allowing an opportunity to bring good faith pre-enforcement challenges to regulations and guidance will enhance public confidence in the tax system and improve the quality of the rules in the first instance. Given congressional dysfunction and a low probability of any meaningful legislation addressing the issue (at least in the short term), courts, practitioners, and academics are left struggling with an increasingly complex and confused AIA jurisprudence. In this Article, which draws heavily on the AIA material in the Thompson Reuters treatise IRS Practice and Procedure where one of us is the lead successor author and the other a contributing author, we provide a discussion and analysis of the case law. Part I details the statutory provisions of the AIA and the Declaratory Judgment Act (DJA). Part II discusses judicially created exceptions to applications of the AIA. Part III examines what constitutes “restraining the assessment or collection” of tax. Part IV explores what constitutes a “tax” for purposes of the AIA and DJA.
反禁令法的困境:案例与主要问题述评
随着国会赋予国税局更多的任务来执行其评估和征收税收的职能,法院、从业者和学者都在努力应用《反禁令法》(AIA),因为国税局在履行新任务的过程中颁布了程序。AIA起源于内战后的时代,当时联邦政府建立了新的程序来确保税收的评估和征收。一项已有150多年历史的条款正在引发越来越多的争议和争议,这似乎有些奇怪。然而,随着法院考虑对税收法规和指导的挑战,AIA的重要性重新显现,部分原因是行政法在税收程序和管理问题上的重要性日益增加。从规范的角度来看,我们赞同立法提案提供额外的方式来挑战法规和其他国税局指导。我们认为,允许在执法前对法规和指导提出善意的质疑,将增强公众对税收制度的信心,并在一审中提高规则的质量。考虑到国会的功能失调,以及解决这一问题的任何有意义的立法(至少在短期内)的可能性很低,法院、从业者和学者只能在日益复杂和混乱的AIA法学中挣扎。本文大量引用了汤普森路透专著《美国国税局实践与程序》中的AIA材料,其中一位作者是主要继承作者,另一位作者是贡献作者,我们对判例法进行了讨论和分析。第一部分详细介绍AIA和宣告判决法(DJA)的法定规定。第二部分讨论AIA适用的司法例外。第三部分探讨了什么构成“限制评估或征收”的税收。第四部分探讨了AIA和DJA目的的“税”构成。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信