|
||||
|
||||
What We Didn't Learn from Home ConcretePatrick J. SmithIvins, Phillips & Barker June 25, 2012 Tax Notes, June 25, 2012, p. 1625 Abstract: 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 interpretation Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: June 26, 2012Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.375 seconds