What We Didn't Learn from Home Concrete
Patrick J. Smith
Ivins, Phillips & Barker
June 25, 2012
Tax Notes, June 25, 2012, p. 1625
The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Home Concrete was disappointing in every respect except for the taxpayer’s victory. The decision raised several significant issues concerning the application of the Chevron test for evaluating the validity of regulations, the scope of the Brand X rule for when agencies are permitted to overrule court decisions on issues of statutory interpretation, and the IRS’s authority to issue retroactive and temporary regulations. However, it also provided authoritative guidance on none of those issues, because of the lack of a majority opinion on the reason the regulation was substantively invalid and because the holding of substantive invalidity made it unnecessary to reach the retroactivity and procedural issues.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 7
Keywords: Chevron, Home Concrete, Brand X, Mayo, administrative law, statutory interpretationAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: June 26, 2012
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo3 in 0.422 seconds