What We Didn't Learn from Home Concrete

7 Pages Posted: 26 Jun 2012  

Patrick J. Smith

Ivins, Phillips & Barker

Date Written: June 25, 2012

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.

Keywords: Chevron, Home Concrete, Brand X, Mayo, administrative law, statutory interpretation

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

Patrick J. Smith (Contact Author)

Ivins, Phillips & Barker ( email )

1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
80
Rank
251,989
Abstract Views
423