非欠税案件的司法审查途径

Keith Fogg
{"title":"非欠税案件的司法审查途径","authors":"Keith Fogg","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3316915","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In the case of Flora v. United States the Supreme Court determined that the jurisdictional statute governing tax refund suits did not make clear whether a taxpayer must fully pay the tax before filing suit to obtain a refund. Despite the lack of clarity in the statute, a split in the circuits and no strong reasons for its decision, a 5-4 majority of the Court decided in its second try at the case that a taxpayer who received a statutory notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court could not pay a partial amount of the tax and sue for refund. \n \nSeventeen years later in the case of Laing v. United States, the Solicitor General argued that Flora was limited to situations in which the taxpayer had received a notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court and did not create a bar to partial payment in other situations. Despite its weak foundation and its narrow scope, the Flora decision now stands as a broad bar to taxpayers seeking a refund who do not fully pay the tax before bring the suit. The IRS and the Department of Justice have completely reversed course from the argument made by the Solicitor General in Laing. \n \nThe result of the current interpretation of Flora by the lower courts is that for taxpayers who never have the opportunity to petition the Tax Court prior to assessment or who missed the opportunity to go to Tax Court but can never scape together enough money to fully pay the tax the opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS may be lost. The recent case of Larson v. United States brings this home in stark fashion. Mr. Stark promoted tax shelters. The IRS assessed against him, and others, a tax shelter promotion penalty of approximately $160 million. Because the penalty was an assessable penalty which did not exist when Flora was decided and because he does not have $160 million with which to satisfy the assessment, Mr. Larson is barred from judicially contesting this assessment. \n \nThis paper analyzes how we reached the situation that certain taxpayers have no opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS and suggests a path that would allow ever taxpayer the opportunity for judicial review of their tax assessment. \n \nIt appeared that Congress attempted to provide an opportunity for judicial review when it passed the Collection Due Process provisions in 1998; however, the regulations written by the IRS have the effect of cutting off judicial review in situations in which the taxpayer has the opportunity for administrative review. The paper suggests that relatively small changes to the Collection Due Process provisions could provide the opportunity for judicial review of tax assessments to everyone. It also explores other avenues that could provide this opportunity.","PeriodicalId":233762,"journal":{"name":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Access to Judicial Review in Non-Deficiency Tax Cases\",\"authors\":\"Keith Fogg\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3316915\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In the case of Flora v. United States the Supreme Court determined that the jurisdictional statute governing tax refund suits did not make clear whether a taxpayer must fully pay the tax before filing suit to obtain a refund. Despite the lack of clarity in the statute, a split in the circuits and no strong reasons for its decision, a 5-4 majority of the Court decided in its second try at the case that a taxpayer who received a statutory notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court could not pay a partial amount of the tax and sue for refund. \\n \\nSeventeen years later in the case of Laing v. United States, the Solicitor General argued that Flora was limited to situations in which the taxpayer had received a notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court and did not create a bar to partial payment in other situations. Despite its weak foundation and its narrow scope, the Flora decision now stands as a broad bar to taxpayers seeking a refund who do not fully pay the tax before bring the suit. The IRS and the Department of Justice have completely reversed course from the argument made by the Solicitor General in Laing. \\n \\nThe result of the current interpretation of Flora by the lower courts is that for taxpayers who never have the opportunity to petition the Tax Court prior to assessment or who missed the opportunity to go to Tax Court but can never scape together enough money to fully pay the tax the opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS may be lost. The recent case of Larson v. United States brings this home in stark fashion. Mr. Stark promoted tax shelters. The IRS assessed against him, and others, a tax shelter promotion penalty of approximately $160 million. Because the penalty was an assessable penalty which did not exist when Flora was decided and because he does not have $160 million with which to satisfy the assessment, Mr. Larson is barred from judicially contesting this assessment. \\n \\nThis paper analyzes how we reached the situation that certain taxpayers have no opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS and suggests a path that would allow ever taxpayer the opportunity for judicial review of their tax assessment. \\n \\nIt appeared that Congress attempted to provide an opportunity for judicial review when it passed the Collection Due Process provisions in 1998; however, the regulations written by the IRS have the effect of cutting off judicial review in situations in which the taxpayer has the opportunity for administrative review. The paper suggests that relatively small changes to the Collection Due Process provisions could provide the opportunity for judicial review of tax assessments to everyone. It also explores other avenues that could provide this opportunity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":233762,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"volume\":\"38 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3316915\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"U.S. Administrative Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3316915","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在Flora v. United States一案中,最高法院裁定,有关退税诉讼的管辖法规没有明确规定纳税人在提起诉讼以获得退税之前是否必须全额缴纳税款。尽管法规缺乏明确性,巡回法院存在分歧,也没有强有力的理由作出裁决,但法院在该案的第二次审理中,以5比4的多数裁定,收到法定欠税通知但未向税务法院请愿的纳税人不能支付部分税款,也不能起诉要求退款。17年后,在Laing诉美国一案中,副检察长争辩说,Flora仅限于纳税人收到欠税通知而未向税务法院请愿的情况,并且在其他情况下没有设置部分支付的障碍。尽管弗洛拉案的裁决基础薄弱,范围狭窄,但对于那些在提起诉讼前未全额缴纳税款的纳税人来说,这一裁决现在是一个广泛的障碍。国税局和司法部已经完全改变了副检察长在莱恩案中提出的观点。下级法院目前对Flora的解释的结果是,对于那些从未有机会在评估之前向税务法院请愿的纳税人,或者那些错过了去税务法院的机会但永远无法筹集足够的钱来全额缴纳税款的纳税人,可能会失去对国税局行为进行司法审查的机会。最近的拉尔森诉美国案(Larson v. United States)鲜明地说明了这一点。斯塔克提倡避税。美国国税局对他和其他人征收了约1.6亿美元的避税促进罚款。由于这项罚款是一项应评税的罚款,在弗洛拉案判决时还不存在,而且由于他没有1.6亿美元来支付摊款,拉尔森先生被禁止对这项摊款进行司法抗辩。本文分析了我们是如何达到某些纳税人没有机会对国税局的行为进行司法审查的情况的,并提出了一条使每个纳税人都有机会对其税务评估进行司法审查的途径。国会似乎试图在1998年通过收集正当程序条款时提供司法审查的机会;然而,在纳税人有机会进行行政复议的情况下,国税局制定的条例具有切断司法审查的作用。本文建议,对征收正当程序条款进行相对较小的修改,可以为每个人提供对税收评估进行司法审查的机会。它还探索了其他可能提供这一机会的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Access to Judicial Review in Non-Deficiency Tax Cases
In the case of Flora v. United States the Supreme Court determined that the jurisdictional statute governing tax refund suits did not make clear whether a taxpayer must fully pay the tax before filing suit to obtain a refund. Despite the lack of clarity in the statute, a split in the circuits and no strong reasons for its decision, a 5-4 majority of the Court decided in its second try at the case that a taxpayer who received a statutory notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court could not pay a partial amount of the tax and sue for refund. Seventeen years later in the case of Laing v. United States, the Solicitor General argued that Flora was limited to situations in which the taxpayer had received a notice of deficiency and failed to petition the Tax Court and did not create a bar to partial payment in other situations. Despite its weak foundation and its narrow scope, the Flora decision now stands as a broad bar to taxpayers seeking a refund who do not fully pay the tax before bring the suit. The IRS and the Department of Justice have completely reversed course from the argument made by the Solicitor General in Laing. The result of the current interpretation of Flora by the lower courts is that for taxpayers who never have the opportunity to petition the Tax Court prior to assessment or who missed the opportunity to go to Tax Court but can never scape together enough money to fully pay the tax the opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS may be lost. The recent case of Larson v. United States brings this home in stark fashion. Mr. Stark promoted tax shelters. The IRS assessed against him, and others, a tax shelter promotion penalty of approximately $160 million. Because the penalty was an assessable penalty which did not exist when Flora was decided and because he does not have $160 million with which to satisfy the assessment, Mr. Larson is barred from judicially contesting this assessment. This paper analyzes how we reached the situation that certain taxpayers have no opportunity for judicial review of the actions of the IRS and suggests a path that would allow ever taxpayer the opportunity for judicial review of their tax assessment. It appeared that Congress attempted to provide an opportunity for judicial review when it passed the Collection Due Process provisions in 1998; however, the regulations written by the IRS have the effect of cutting off judicial review in situations in which the taxpayer has the opportunity for administrative review. The paper suggests that relatively small changes to the Collection Due Process provisions could provide the opportunity for judicial review of tax assessments to everyone. It also explores other avenues that could provide this opportunity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信