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 interpretation

Open PDF in Browser Download This Paper

Date posted: June 26, 2012  

Suggested Citation

Smith, Patrick J., What We Didn't Learn from Home Concrete (June 25, 2012). Tax Notes, June 25, 2012, p. 1625. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2092858

Contact Information

Patrick J. Smith (Contact Author)
Ivins, Phillips & Barker ( email )
1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
United States
Feedback to SSRN

Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 410
Downloads: 79
Download Rank: 246,659