The death of tax court exceptionalism

Minnesota Law Review

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2014, Pages 343-379

  Hoffer, Stephanie ^c   Walker, Christopher J ^a,b  

^a College of Law ^*  (United States)

^b OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84919705627     PISSN: 00265535     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (502)

1. See, e.g., Kristin E. Hickman, The Need for Mead : Rejecting Tax Exceptionalism in Judicial Deference, 90 MINN. L. REV. 1537, 1541 (2006)
2. see also Richard E. Levy & Robert L. Glicksman, Agency-Specific Precedents, 89 TEX. L. REV. 499, 515-26 (2011)
3. See Paul L. Caron, Tax Myopia, or Mamas Don't Let Your Babies Grow Up to Be Tax Lawyers, 13 VA. TAX REV. 517, 518-19 (1994)
4. See Amandeep S. Grewal, Foreword: Taking Administrative Law to Tax, 63 DUKE L.J. 1625 (2014).
5. 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011).
6. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
7. Mayo, 131 S. Ct. at 713
8. (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999)).
9. Cohen v. United States, 650 F.3d 717, 736 (D.C. Cir. 2011)
10. Kristin E. Hickman, Unpacking the Force of Law, 66 VAND. L. REV. 465, 466 (2013).
11. Kristin E. Hickman, Administering the Tax System We Have, 63 DUKE L.J. 1717, 1747, 1760-61 (2014).
12. Patrick J. Smith, Life After Mayo: Silver Linings, 131 TAX NOTES 1251, 1256 (2011).
13. Thomas Greenaway, Mayo Foundation Cures Tax Myopia, KPMG WHAT'S NEWS IN TAX 1 (Jan. 17, 2011), http://taxprof.typepad.com/files/mayo- kpmg.pdf.
14. But see Lawrence Zelenak, Maybe Just a Little Bit Special, After All?, 63 DUKE L.J. 1897 (2014)
15. See Leandra Lederman, Tax Appeal: A Proposal To Make the United States Tax Court More Judicial, 85 WASH. U. L. REV. 1195, 1199 (2008)
16. see also Leandra Lederman, (Un)Appealing Deference to the Tax Court, 63 DUKE L.J. 1835 (2014)
17. David Laro, The Evolution of the Tax Court as an Independent Tribunal, 1995 U. ILL. L. REV. 17, 18 (1995).
18. See 2000-2010 U.S. TAX C T. ANN. REP. tbl.4
19. 1996-2006 U.S. TAX CT. ANN. REP. tbl.4.
20. INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., DATA BOOK 61 tbl.27 (2012) [hereinafter IRS 2012 DATA BOOK], http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12databk.pdf;
21. INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., DATA BOOK 61 tbl.27 (2011), http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/11databk.pdf;
22. INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., DATA BOOK 61 tbl.27 (2010), http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10databk.pdf;
23. INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., DATA BOOK 61 tbl.27 (2009), http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/09databk.pdf;
24. INTERNAL REVENUE SERV., DATA BOOK 61 tbl.27 (2008), http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/08databkrevised.pdf.
25. Robinette v. Comm'r, 123 T.C. 85, 96 (2004),
26. rev'd 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006);
27. see also, e.g., O'Dwyer v. Comm'r, 266 F.2d 575, 580 (4th Cir. 1959)
28. aff'g 28 T.C. 698 (1957);
29. Porter v. Comm'r, 130 T.C. 115, 117 (2008).
30. See Mitchell v. Comm'r, 292 F.3d 800, 807 (D.C. Cir. 2002);
31. Cheshire v. Comm'r, 282 F.3d 326, 338 (5th Cir. 2002).
32. Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262, 1276-78 (11th Cir. 2009);
33. Murphy v. Comm'r, 469 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2006);
34. Robinette v. Comm'r, 439 F.3d 455, 460 (8th Cir. 2006).
35. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 994 (9th Cir. 2013)
36. I.R.S. Actions Relating to Court Decisions, 2013-25 I.R.B. (June 17, 2013).
37. See I.R.S. Notice, CC-2013-011 (Jun. 7, 2013).
38. See David C. Frederick, Christopher J. Walker & David M. Burke, The Insider's Guide to the Supreme Court of the United States, in APPELLATE PRACTICE COMPENDIUM 1, 7 (Dana Livingston ed., 2012)
39. See 26 U.S.C. § 7441 (2012)
40. see also Harold Dubroff, The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis-Part IV: The Board Becomes a Court, 41 ALB. L. REV. 1, 40-51 (1977)
41. reprinted in DUBROFF, infra note 41, at 204-15.
42. Diane L. Fahey, Is the United States Tax Court Exempt from Administrative Law Jurisprudence When Acting as a Reviewing Court?, 58 CLEV. ST. L. REV. 603, 605 (2010).
43. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999).
44. Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 378 (1946)
45. 5 U.S.C. §§ 701(b) (2012).
46. See Christopher J. Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule and the Judicial Toolbox for Agency Dialogue, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014) [hereinafter Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule], available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2242869.
47. Lederman, Tax Appeal, supra note 14, at 1200-16.
48. See generally HAROLD DUBROFF, THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT: AN HISTORICAL ANALYSIS 1-215 (1979)
49. Bryan T. Camp, A History of Tax Regulation Prior to the Administrative Procedure Act, 63 DUKE L.J. 1673, 1684 (2014)
50. Revenue Act of 1924, Pub. L. No. 68-176, § 900, 43 Stat. 253, 336-38.
51. accord Dobson v. Comm'r, 320 U.S. 489, 497 (1943);
52. see also Harold Dubroff, The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis-Part II: Creation of the Board of Tax Appeals, 40 ALB. L. REV. 7, 53-58 (1976)
53. reprinted in DUBROFF, supra note 41, at 47-52;
54. Fahey, supra note 32, at 617.
55. Fahey, supra note 32, at 617.
56. Phillips v. Comm'r, 283 U.S. 589, 598 (1931)
57. (citing Revenue Act of 1928, ch. 852, § 601, 45 Stat. 791, 872);
58. accord Dubroff, supra note 43, at 96, 101
59. reprinted in DUBROFF, supra note 41, at 90, 95-96
60. Revenue Act of 1924, Pub. L. No. 68-176, § 900(g), 43 Stat. 253, 337.
61. Old Colony Trust Co. v. Comm'r, 279 U.S. 716, 725 (1929).
62. See Harold Dubroff, The United States Tax Court: An Historical Analysis, Part III: The Revenue Act of 1926-Improving the Board of Tax Appeals,
63. ALB. L. REV. 253, 257-60 (1976).
64. reprinted in DUBROFF, supra note 41, at 113-16.
65. Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, § 1001, 44 Stat. 9, 109;
66. see also David F. Shores, Deferential Review of Tax Court Decisions: Dobson Revisited, 49 TAX LAW. 629, 635 (1996)
67. See Deborah A. Geier, The Emasculated Role of Judicial Precedent in the Tax Court and Internal Revenue Service, 39 OKLA. L. REV. 427, 431 (1986)
68. See Gary W. Carter, The Commissioner's Nonacquiescence: A Case for a National Court of Tax Appeals, 59 TEMP. L.Q. 879, 882 (1986)
69. Revenue Act of 1942, Pub. L. No. 77-753, § 504(a), 56 Stat. 798.
70. Dubroff, supra note 32, at 14
71. reprinted in DUBROFF, supra note 41, at 178.
72. Fahey, supra note 32, at 629
73. (quoting DUBROFF, supra note 41, at 178).
74. see JAMES T. SPARROW, WARFARE STATE: WORLD WAR II AMERICANS AND THE AGE OF BIG GOVERNMENT 125 (2011).
75. Revenue Act of 1942, Pub. L. No. 77-753, § 504(a), 56 Stat. 798, 957;
76. see also Diane L. Fahey, The Tax Court's Jurisdiction over Due Process Collection Appeals: Is It Constitutional?, 55 BAYLOR L. REV. 453, 481-82 (2003).
77. Revenue Act of 1942, Pub. L. No. 77-753, § 504(b), 56 Stat. 798, 957;
78. Fahey, supra note 51, at 482.
79. Dobson v. Comm'r, 320 U.S. 489, 499 (1943);
80. see also Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 998 (9th Cir. 2013)
81. Administrative Procedure Act, Pub. L. No. 79-404, 60 Stat. 237 (1946)
82. S. REP. NO. 79-752, at App. B (1945),
83. reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 79-248, at 224 (1946).
84. Fahey, supra note 32, at 634.
85. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F) (2012).
86. H. REP. NO. 79-1980, pt. 4 § 10(E) (1946),
87. reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 79-248, at 279 (1946)
88. see also S. REP. NO. 79-752, pt. 4 § 10(e) (1945)
89. Fahey, supra note 32, at 636;
90. But see O'Dwyer v. Comm'r, 266 F.2d 575, 580 (4th Cir. 1959)
91. See Leandra Lederman, Restructuring the U.S. Tax Court: A Reply to Stephanie Hoffer and Christopher Walker's The Death of Tax Court Exceptionalism, 99 MINN. L. REV. HEADNOTES 20-24 (2014), http://www.minnesotalawreview.org/headnotes.
92. Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-172, sec. 951, § 7441, 83 Stat. 487, 730
93. (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7441 (2012));
94. see also Dubroff, supra note 32, at 40-51
95. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 998 (9th Cir. 2013)
96. Freytag v. Comm'r, 501 U.S. 868, 891 (1991);
97. [26 U.S.C.] §§ 7482(a).
98. see also Lederman, (Un)Appealing Deference, supra note 14, at 1874- 93
99. See Danshera Cords, Administrative Law and Judicial Review of Tax Collection Decisions, 52 ST. LOUIS U. L.J. 429, 435-36 (2008).
100. See Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, 90 Stat. 1520
101. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, Pub. L. No. 93- 406, title II, pt. 4, sec. 1041, § 7476, 88 Stat. 829, 949
102. (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 7476).
103. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, title XIII, sec. 1306, § 7428, 90 Stat. 1520, 1717
104. (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 7428).
105. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, title XII, sec. 1212, § 6404, 90 Stat. 1520, 1712
106. (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 6404).
107. Tax Reform Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-455, title XII, sec. 1201, § 6110(d)(3), 90 Stat. 1520, 1661
108. (codified at 26 U.S.C. § 6902 (subpoena power), § 6110(d)(3)).
109. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 6015
110. See Cords, supra note 63, at 437.
111. Fahey, supra note 32, at 619
112. 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a).
113. See DAVID M. RICHARDSON ET AL., CIVIL TAX PROCEDURE 87-88 (2005)
114. See RICHARDSON, supra note 76, at 87-88.
115. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7602(a)
116. See 26 C.F.R. § 601.105(d)(1) (2013).
117. See LEANDRA LEDERMAN & STEPHEN W. MAZZA, TAX CONTROVERSIES: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 5.02[B][2], [C][2] (3d ed. 2009).
118. See RICHARDSON ET AL., supra note 76, at 111-12
119. See 26 U.S.C. § 6212(a)
120. Welch v. Helvering, 290 U.S. 111, 115 (1933).
121. See TAX C T. R. 91
122. 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1).
123. See Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA), Pub. L. No. 105-206, 112 Stat. 685, 734
124. 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f)
125. (codified as amended at 26 U.S.C. § 6015).
126. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6015(e)(1).
127. 26 U.S.C. §§ 6015(f).
128. See King v. Comm'r., 115 T.C. 118, 121-23 (2000)
129. see I.R.S. Notice CC-2013-011 (June 17, 2013)
130. See also I.R.S. IRM 4.19.13.22 (Jan. 1, 2014)
131. I.R.S. IRM 4.8.9.16.10.6 (June 9, 2013)
132. I.R.S. IRM 25.15.12.25 (May 22, 2012)
133. see I.R.S. IRM 25.15.1.6.1 (July 30, 2014
134. see I.R.S. IRM 8.22.8.9 (Nov. 8, 2013)
135. See generally 26 U.S.C. § 6015
136. Treas. Reg. § 1.6015-6(b) (2002)
137. See 26 U.S.C. § 6015(e)
138. See generally Stephanie Hoffer et al., To Pay or Delay: The Nominee's Dilemma Under Collection Due Process, 82 TUL. L. REV. 781, 787-94 (2008)
139. See 26 U.S.C. § 6320(b)(4)
140. Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d), Q&A (6) (as amended in 2006).
141. Bryan T. Camp, The Failure of Adversarial Process in the Administrative State, 84 IND. L.J. 57, 83 (2009).
142. Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d), Q&A (7) (as amended in 2006).
143. see Camp, supra note 121, at 80-88.
144. Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(e)(3), Q&A (8)(E) (as amended in 2006).
145. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1) (2012).
146. Robinette v. Comm'r, 123 T.C. 85, 96 (2004)
147. rev'd, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006);
148. see also Porter v. Comm'r, 130 T.C. 115, 117 (2008)
149. See Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 994-996
150. Cords, supra note 63, at 457 & n.187
151. (citing Mailman v. Comm'r, 91 T.C. 1079, 1082-83 (1988);
152. Estate of Gardner v. Comm'r, 82 T.C. 989, 994 (1984);
153. Dittler Bros., Inc. v. Comm'r, 72 T.C. 896, 909-10 (1979)
154. aff'd without published opinion, 642 F.2d 1211 (5th Cir. 1981)).
155. See Wilson. 705 F.3d at 994-1012 (9th Cir. 2013)
156. Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262, 1278-87 (11th Cir. 2009)
157. Robinette v. Comm'r, 439 F.3d 455, 458-62 (8th Cir. 2006)
158. Ewing v. Comm'r, 122 T.C. 32, 56-71 (2004)
159. rev'd on jurisdictional grounds, 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006)
160. see also Cords, supra note 63, at 448-78;
161. Fahey, supra note 32, at 610-48.
162. See 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (2012).
163. See generally Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879, 901-08 (1988)
164. 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2).
165. 5 U.S.C. § 702
166. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 998 (9th Cir. 2013).
167. (citing 30 U.S.C. § 1276).
168. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)
169. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999).
170. 5 U.S.C. § 559;
171. see also Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 310 (1955)
172. 527 U.S. at 155.
173. Dickinson, 527 U.S. at 154-55;
174. see also see also II RICHARD J. PIERCE, JR., ADMINISTRATIVE LAW TREATISE § 11.2 at 772 (4th ed. 2002)
175. But see Marcello, 349 U.S. at 310
176. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
177. Abbott Labs., Inc. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 143 (1967);
178. accord Am. Paper Inst. v. Am. Elec. Power Serv. Corp., 461 U.S. 402, 412 n.7 (1983)
179. But see Small Refiner Lead Phase Down Task Force v. EPA, 705 F.2d 506, 520 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
180. See, e.g., Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 141 (1997).
181. Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405 (1990).
182. Motor Vehicle Mfg. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).
183. James D. Cox & Benjamin J.C. Baucom, The Emperor Has No Clothes: Confronting the D.C. Circuit's Usurpation of SEC Rulemaking Authority, 90 TEX. L. REV. 1811, 1825 (2012);
184. see also Koon v. United States, 518 U.S. 81, 100 (1996)
185. 463 U.S. at 43
186. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962));
187. accord FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513-14 (2009).
188. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2) (2012).
189. 2 CHARLES H. KOCH, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW AND PRACTICE § 8.27[1], at 509 (2d ed. 1997).
190. United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U.S. 709, 715 (1963).
191. See Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 743 (1985).
192. (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 551(13), 704, 706).
193. 2 KOCH, supra note 157, § 8.27[3] at 511.
194. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F);
195. see also Carlo Bianchi, 373 U.S. at 714-15
196. Theodore Roosevelt Conservation P'ship v. Salazar, 616 F.3d 497, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2010);
197. (quoting Commercial Drapery Contractors, Inc. v. United States, 133 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 1998));
198. see also Citizens to Pres. Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 (1971)
199. abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99 (1977);
200. see also, e.g., Sw. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Forest Serv., 100 F.3d 1443, 1450 (9th Cir. 1996).
201. Fla. Power & Light, 470 U.S. at 744;
202. See, e.g., Gillian E. Metzger, Embracing Administrative Common Law, 80 GEO. WASH. L. REV. 1293, 1295 (2012).
203. See, e.g., Merrick B. Garland, Deregulation and Judicial Review, 98 HARV. L. REV. 505, 525-62 (1985);
204. Thomas J. Miles & Cass R. Sunstein, The Real World of Arbitrariness Review, 75 U. CHI. L. REV. 761, 761 (2008).
205. Thomas W. Merrill, Article III, Agency Adjudication, and the Origins of the Appellate Review Model of Administrative Law, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 939, 999 (2011).
206. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40
207. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713 (2011).
208. (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999)).
209. See, e.g., Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 517 (2009)
210. (quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16-17 (2002) (per curiam))).
211. See generally III PIERCE, supra note 145, § 18.1.
212. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40
213. see also Christopher J. Walker, How To Win the Deference Lottery, 91 TEX. L. REV. SEE ALSO 73, 83-85 (2013).
214. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 (1943)
215. (quoting Helvering v. Gowran, 302 U.S. 238, 245 (1937))
216. see Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40
217. see also Jerry L. Mashaw, Small Things Like Reasons Are Put in a Jar: Reason and Legitimacy in the Administrative State, 70 FORDHAM L. REV. 17, 19-26 (2001).
218. 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (2012).
219. Tax Reform Act of 1969, Pub. L. No. 91-172, sec. 951, § 7441, 83 Stat. 487, 730 (1969)
220. (codified as 26 U.S.C. § 7441).
221. 5 U.S.C. § 702.
222. Nappi v. Comm'r, 58 T.C. 282, 284 (1972).
223. Robinette v. Comm'r, 439 F.3d 455, 461 (8th Cir. 2006);
224. accord Cords, supra note 63, at 471.
225. U.S. CONST. art. III, § 1.
226. Lederman, supra note 59, at 23.
227. Freytag v. Comm'r, 501 U.S. 868, 890-91 (1991).
228. 26 U.S.C. § 7443 (2012).
229. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 2, cl. 2.
230. Freytag, 501 U.S. at 884.
231. see ERWIN CHEMERINSKY, FEDERAL JURISDICTION § 4.4 (6th ed. 2012), and most recently affirmed such a "public rights exception".
232. in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2611-12 (2011).
233. Kuretski v. Comm'r, 755 F.3d 929, 943 (D.C. Cir. 2014).
234. Patrick J. Smith, Reflections on Kuretski v. Commissioner, TAXP ROF BLOG (June 22, 2014) http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof-blog/2014/06/smith.html.;
235. 755 F.3d at 943,
236. accord Kristin Hickman, Kuretski v. Commissioner: A Fun and Fascinating Bit of Academic Folderol?, TAXPROF BLOG (June 23, 2014), http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof-blog/2014/06/hickman-kuretski-v-commissioner-.html
237. Cf. Megibow v. Clerk of the U.S. Tax Court, No. 04-3321, 2004 WL 1961591 at ∗4-64, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31, 2004)
238. (holding that the Tax Court is a "court of the United States" and not an "agency" under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 (1)),
239. aff'd, 432 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2005) (per curiam).
240. Kuretski 755 F.3d 944
241. See Ewing v. Comm'r, 122 T.C. 32, 38 (2004)
242. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
243. See Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 1003 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013)
244. see also Clapp v. Comm'r, 875 F.2d 1396, 1403 (9th Cir. 1989)
245. accord Raheja v. Comm'r, 725 F.2d 64, 66 (7th Cir. 1984).
246. See generally Porter v. Comm'r, 130 T.C. 115, 119 (2008)
247. Wilson, 705 F.3d at 1003 n.3.
248. See 26 U.S.C. § 7422 (2012);
249. see also Cords, supra note 63, at 456-57,
250. Melissa Ellen Segal, Who Bears the Burden of Proof in Taxpayer Suits Against the IRS?, 4 PITT. TAX REV. 155 (2007).
251. See 26 U.S.C. § 6213(a).
252. See, e.g., Cords, supra note 63, at 473.
253. See 26 U.S.C. § 6214(a).
254. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 1007 (9th Cir. 2013).
255. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 155 (1999).
256. See generally Segal, supra note 194, at 165-66.
257. 26 U.S.C. § 7491(a)(1).
258. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F) (2012).
259. Ewing v. Comm'r, 122 T.C. 32, 37 (2004),
260. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
261. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F).
262. H. REP. NO. 79-1980, pt. 4 § 10(E) (1946)
263. reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 79-248, at 279 (1946)
264. see also S. REP. NO. 79-752, pt. 4 § 10(e) (1945)
265. reprinted in S. DOC. NO. 79-248, at 214 (1946)
266. Fahey, supra note 32, at 634-36.
267. Johnson v. Comm'r, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002).
268. 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003)
269. Ewing, 122 T.C. at 43-44
270. 439 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2006).
271. See Ewing, 122 T.C. at 56-71.
272. Porter v. Comm'r, 132 T.C. 203, 206-10 (2009).
273. Mitchell v. Comm'r, 292 F.3d 800, 807 (D.C. Cir. 2002)
274. Cheshire v. Comm'r, 282 F.3d 326, 338 (5th Cir. 2002) .
275. Comm'r v. Neal, 557 F.3d 1262, 1264 (11th Cir. 2009).
276. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 982 (9th Cir. 2013).
277. 26 U.S.C. § 6015(e)(3) (2012).
278. See, e.g., Flores v. United States, 51 Fed. Cl. 49, 51 n.1 (2001);
279. accord Mitchell v. Comm'r, 292 F.3d 800, 807 (D.C. Cir. 2002) .
280. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999).
281. 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f).
282. Porter v. Comm'r, 132 T.C. 203, 208 (2009).
283. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 1004 (9th Cir. 2013).
284. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 155 (1999).
285. Marcello v. Bonds, 349 U.S. 302, 310 (1955).
286. 5 U.S.C. § 559.
287. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 1004 (9th Cir. 2013)
288. (citing 5 U.S.C. §§ 706(2)(F), 7702(e)(3), 7703(c) (2012);
289. 7 U.S.C. §§ 499g(c), 2023(a)(15) (2012);
290. 28 U.S.C. § 657(a), (c) (2012);
291. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(c) (2012);
292. 42 U.S.C. §§ 300e-9(d)(3), 1995 (2012);
293. 47 U.S.C. § 504(a) (2012)).
294. Wilson, 705 F.3d at 1005
295. (citing, 6 U.S.C. § 1142(c)(7) (2012);
296. 12 U.S.C. §§ 1828(c)(7)(A), 1849(b)(1), 5567(c)(4)(D)(i) (2012);
297. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2087(b)(4), 3414(b)(6)(F) (2012);
298. 16 U.S.C. § 823b(b), (d)(3)(B) (2012);
299. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1514A(b)(1)(B), 3613A(b)(1), 3742(e) (2012);
300. 19 U.S.C. § 1625(b) (2012);
301. 21 U.S.C. § 399d(b)(4)(A) (2012);
302. 22 U.S.C. § 4140(b)(2) (2012);
303. 28 U.S.C. § 2265(c)(3) (2012);
304. 30 U.S.C. § 1300(j)(4)(ii)(I) (2012);
305. 42 U.S.C. §§ 2282a(c)(3)(B), 5851(b)(4), 6303(d)(3)(B), 8433(d)(3)(B) (2012);
306. 49 U.S.C. §§ 20109(d)(3), 31105(c) (2012)).
307. See, e.g., 18 U.S.C. § 3664(d)(6)
308. U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
309. Compare 26 U.S.C. § 6015(e)(1) (2012),
310. Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 63 (2006)
311. accord ANTONIN SCALIA & BRYAN A. GARNER, READING LAW: THE INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL TEXTS 170 (2012)
312. See Wilson, 705 F.3d at 1004-12
313. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(1).
314. H.R. REP. NO. 105-599, at 266 (1998).
315. Goza v. Comm'r, 114 T.C. 176, 179 (2000).
316. H.R. REP. N O. 105-599, at 266. (1998).
317. See, e.g., Olsen v. United States, 414 F.3d 144, 150-51 (1st Cir. 2005)
318. Living Care Alternatives of Utica, Inc. v. United States, 411 F.3d 621, 625 (6th Cir. 2005)
319. Jones v. Comm'r, 338 F.3d 463, 466 (5th Cir. 2003)
320. Robinette v. Comm'r, 123 T.C. 85, 95 (2004),
321. 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006);
322. see also Cords, supra note 63, at 457 n.185.
323. Robinette, 123 T.C. at 97
324. (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 559 (2000)).
325. Robinette v. Comm'r, 439 F. 3d 455, 460 (8th Cir. 2006).
326. Robinette, 123 T.C. at 99.
327. H.R. REP. NO. 105-599, at 266 (1998).
328. Murphy v. Comm'r, 469 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2006).
329. See Cords, supra note 63, at 453-65;
330. Fahey, supra note 32, at 609-15;
331. Christine K. Lane, On-the-Record Review of CDP Determinations: An Examination of Policy Reasons Encouraging Judges to Stick to the Administrative Record, 6 FLA. ST. U. BUS. L. REV. 149, 156-59 (2007);
332. Nick A. Zotos, Service Collection Abuse of Discretion: What Is the Appropriate Standard of Review and Scope of the Record in Collection Due Process Appeals?, 62 TAX LAW. 223, 225-28 (2008).
333. Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d) Q&A (6)(D) (2013).
334. Camp, supra note 121, at 83.
335. Treas. Reg. § 301.6330-1(d) Q&A (7)(D).
336. Camp, supra note 121, at 84.
337. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).
338. See Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980 (9th Cir. 2013)
339. I.R.S. Notice CC- 2013-011, at 2 n.1 (June 7, 2013)
340. In Friday v. Commissioner, 124 T.C. 220 (2005), the Tax Court held that section 6015 does not provide for remand.").
341. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2) (2012).
342. See Friday v. Comm'r, 124 T.C. 220, 221-22 (2005)
343. citing Parker v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2004-226;
344. accord Wilson, 705 F.3d at 989.
345. See, e.g., Herycyk v. United States, No. 4:01-CV-00058, 2001 WL 1836194, at ∗4 (N.D. Ohio Dec. 11, 2001).
346. But see Montijo v. United States, No. CV-S-01-0423-RLH RJJ, 2002 WL 507573, at ∗1-2 (D. Nev. Feb. 22, 2002).
347. Porter v. Comm'r, 132 T.C. 203, 209 (2009);
348. see also Wilson, 705 F.3d at 1011.
349. Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999).
350. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713 (2011).
351. (quoting Dickinson, 527 U.S. at 154)).
352. Negusie v. Holder, 555 U.S. 511, 523 (2009)
353. (quoting Gonzales v. Thomas, 547 U.S. 183, 186 (2006)
354. in turn quoting INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 16 (2002)
355. in turn quoting Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985)).
356. Fed. Power Comm'n v. Idaho Power Co., 344 U.S. 17, 20 (1952).
357. See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947);
358. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 95 (1943).
359. See generally Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
360. 26 U.S.C. § 6330(d)(2) (2012).
361. Negusie, 555 U.S. at 523.
362. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
363. 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(F) (2012).
364. Fla. Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985).
365. See, e.g., Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 997 (9th Cir. 2013)
366. (quoting Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 416 (1971)));
367. United States v. UPS Customhouse Brokerage, Inc., 686 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1351;
368. ("As to remand, the Court is authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 2640(a)(6) to decide the issues in this case at a trial de novo, so remand is not required.");
369. see Conkright v. Frommert, 130 S. Ct. 1640, 1646-47, 1651-52 (2010)
370. See, e.g., Quesinberry v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 987 F.2d 1017, 1025 n.6 (4th Cir. 1993);
371. Fitts v. Unum Life Ins. Co. of Am., No. 98-00617, 2007 WL 1334974, at ∗21 (D.D.C. May 7, 2007)
372. (citing Casey v. Uddeholm Corp., 32 F.3d 1094, 1099 n.4 (7th Cir. 1994)));
373. Dionida v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., 50 F. Supp. 2d 934, 942 (N.D. Cal. 1999) .
374. See Stephanie Hoffer, Hobgoblin of Little Minds No More: Justice Requires an IRS Duty of Consistency, 2006 UTAH L. REV. 317, 326-44 (2006) .
375. N AT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, 2012 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 654 (2012) [hereinafter NTA 2012 REPORT], http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/Full-Report/volume-1.pdf
376. NAT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, 2013 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS 412 (2013) [hereinafter NTA 2013 REPORT], http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/2013-Annual-Report-to-Congress-Executive-Summary.pdf.
377. NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 647.
378. NAT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, 2011 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS app. 3, tbl. 8 (2011) [hereinafter NTA 2011 REPORT], http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov//userfiles/file/IRS%20TAS%20ARC%202011%20VOL%201.pdf;
379. N AT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, 2010 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS app.3, tbl.10 (2010) [hereinafter NTA 2010 REPORT], http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/files/ExecSummary-2010ARC.pdf;
380. NAT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, 2009 ANNUAL REPORT TO CONGRESS app. 3, tbl.10 (2009) [hereinafter NTA 2009 REPORT], http://www.irs.gov/pub/irsutl/1-09-tas-arc-vol-1-preface-toc-msp.pdf.
381. See Rev. Proc. 2003-19, 2003-5 I.R.B. 371 (Feb. 3, 2003);
382. C.F.R. § 601.106 (2012).
383. NTA 2013 REPORT, supra note 273, app. 3, tbl.10.
384. see also NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, app. 3, tbl. 9 .
385. NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 654.
386. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 88 (1943).
387. U.S. CONST. art. I, § 1.
388. See Christopher J. Walker, Avoiding Normative Canons in the Review of Administrative Interpretations of Law: A Brand X Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance, 64 ADMIN. L. REV. 139, 173-182 (2012);
389. Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
390. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).
391. U.S. CONST. art. II, § 3.
392. William K. Kelley, Avoiding Constitutional Questions as a Three-Branch Problem, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 831, 883 (2001).
393. See Jack Goldsmith & John F. Manning, The President's Completion Power, 115 YALE L.J. 2280, 2282 (2006).
394. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 865-66 (1984);
395. see also Elena Kagan, Presidential Administration, 114 HARV. L. REV. 2245, 2373 (2001);
396. Randolph J. May, Defining Deference Down: Independent Agencies and Chevron Deference, 58 ADMIN. L. REV. 429, 447 (2006).
397. 26 U.S.C. § 6015(f) (2012).
398. Wilson v. Comm'r, 705 F.3d 980, 1001 (9th Cir. 2013).
399. see 26 U.S.C. §§ 7441, 7443,).
400. Freytag v. Comm'r, 501 U.S. 868, 891 (1991).
401. Note, The Two Faces of Chevron, 120 HARV. L. REV. 1562, 1562-63 (2007);
402. accord Emily Hammond Meazell, Presidential Control, Expertise, and the Deference Dilemma, 61 DUKE L.J. 1763, 1764 (2012);
403. see also, e.g., Ronald J. Krotoszynski, Jr., Why Deference?: Implied Delegations, Agency Expertise, and the Misplaced Legacy of Skidmore, 54 ADMIN. L. REV. 735, 737 (2002)
404. Reuel E. Schiller, The Era of Deference: Courts, Expertise, and the Emergence of New Deal Administrative Law, 106 MICH. L. REV. 399, 441 (2007)
405. Cass R. Sunstein, Chevron Step Zero, 92 VA. L. REV. 187, 200 (2006).
406. I. PIERCE, supra note 145, § 6.9, at 377.
407. see STEPHEN BREYER, BREAKING THE VICIOUS CIRCLE: TOWARD EFFECTIVE RISK REGULATION (1993);
408. Lisa Schultz Bressman, Beyond Accountability: Arbitrariness and Legitimacy in the Administrative State, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV. 461, 480 n.88 (2003);
409. Emily Hammond Meazell, Super Deference, the Science Obsession, and Judicial Review as Translation of Agency Science, 109 MICH. L. REV. 733 (2011);
410. Mathew D. McCubbins et al., Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control, 3 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 243, 246-47 (1987);
411. Walker, Brand X Doctrine of Constitutional Avoidance, supra note 282, at 159- 61.
412. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713 (2011).
413. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983)
414. (quoting Burlington Truck Lines v. United States, 371 U.S. 156, 168 (1962));
415. accord FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc., 556 U.S. 502, 513-14 (2009).
416. See, e.g., William W. Buzbee & Robert A. Schapiro, Legislative Record Review, 54 STAN. L. REV. 87, 140 (2001).
417. INS v. Ventura, 537 U.S. 12, 17 (2002) (per curiam).
418. See Lederman, (Un)Appealing Deference, supra note 14, at 1880- 81.
419. (citing Lawrence Baum, Probing the Effects of Judicial Specialization, 58 DUKE L.J. 1667, 1677 (2009)).
420. See, e.g., Baum, supra note 297, at 1676;
421. David P. Currie & Frank I. Goodman, Judicial Review of Federal Administrative Action: Quest for the Optimum Forum, 75 COLUM. L. REV. 1, 67.
422. NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 595-96.
423. Danshera Cords, Collection Due Process: The Scope and Nature of Judicial Review, 73 U. CIN. L. REV. 1021, 1034-35 (2005);
424. United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U.S. 218, 234 (2001).
425. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704, 713 (2011)
426. (quoting Dickinson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150, 154 (1999).
427. See Lederman, (Un)Appealing Deference, supra note 14, at 1883-85.
428. Henry J. Friendly, Averting the Flood by Lessening the Flow, 59 CORNELL L. REV. 634, 644 n.38 (1974).
429. Mitchell M. Gans, Deference and the End of Tax Practice, 36 REAL PROP. PROB. & TR. J. 731, 789 (2002).
430. Roger J. Traynor, Administrative and Judicial Procedure for Federal Income, Estate, and Gift Taxes-A Criticism and a Proposal, 38 COLUM. L. REV. 1393, 1425-29 (1938);
431. accord Stanley S. Surrey, Some Suggested Topics in the Field of Tax Administration, 25 WASH. U. L.Q. 399, 417-22 (1940).
432. Lane, supra note 248, at 166
433. (citing Leandra Lederman, "Civil"izing Tax Procedure: Applying General Federal Learning to Statutory Notices of Deficiency, 30 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 183 (1996));
434. see Lederman, supra, at 183.
435. JERRY L. MASHAW, BUREAUCRATIC JUSTICE: MANAGING SOCIAL SECURITY DISABILITY CLAIMS 25-26 (1983);
436. see also Robert A. Kagan, Inside Administrative Law, 84 COLUM. L. REV. 816, 820 (1984).
437. See generally Hoffer, supra note 271, at 318-19.
438. See Leandra Lederman, The Interplay Between Norms and Enforcement in Tax Compliance, 64 OHIO ST. L.J. 1453, 1455-59 (2003)
439. see George L. Priest & Benjamin Klein, The Selection of Disputes for Litigation, 13 J. LEGAL STUD. 1, 4 (1984).
440. Compare IRS 2012 DATA BOOK, supra note 21, at 49 tbl.21.
441. with NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 647.
442. See, e.g., Leslie Book, The Collection Due Process Rights: A Misstep or a Step in the Right Direction?, 41 HOUS. L. REV. 1145, 1172 (2004).
443. Steve R. Johnson, Reasoned Explanation and IRS Adjudication, 63 DUKE L.J. 1771, 1775-77, 1833-34 (2014).
444. See Goza v. Comm'r, 114 T.C. 176, 182 (2000).
445. See Churchill v. Comm'r, T.C. Memo. 2011-182 1, 13 (2011).
446. see Leslie Book, A Response to Professor Camp: The Importance of Oversight, 84 IND. L.J. SUPPLEMENT 63, 73 & n.68 (2009).
447. See Murphy v. Comm'r, 469 F.3d 27, 31 (1st Cir. 2006);
448. Robinette v. Comm'r, 439 F.3d 455, 460-61 (8th Cir. 2006).
449. See I.R.S. IRM, § 8.22 (2014), http://www.irs.gov/irm/part8/index.html.
450. See, e.g., Rev. Proc. 2013-34, I.R.B. 2013-43 (Oct. 21, 2013)
451. Rev. Rul. 2003-36, 2003-1 C.B. 849 (May 5, 2003)
452. Rev. Proc. 2003-19, 2003-5 I.R.B. 371 (Feb. 3, 2003).
453. NTA 2013 REPORT, supra note 273, at 376.
454. NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 647;
455. NTA 2011 REPORT, supra note 276, at 659;
456. NTA 2010 REPORT, supra note 276, at 500;
457. NTA 2009 REPORT, supra note 276, at 490.
458. See Leslie M. Book, CDP and Collections: Perceptions and Misperceptions, 107 TAX NOTES 487, 491 (2005).
459. See N. GREGORY MANKIW, PRINCIPLES OF MICROECONOMICS 145 (6th ed. 2012);
460. Daniel Shaviro, The Rising Tax Electivity of U.S. Corporate Residence, 64 TAX L. REV. 377, 396-97 (2011).
461. See Lane, supra note 248, at 160.
462. See Book, supra note 328, at 491.
463. Book, supra note 317, at 1173;
464. see also Leslie Book, CDP and Collections: Perceptions and Misperceptions, COMMUNITY. TAX L. REP., Fall/Winter 2004, at 2, 13.
465. Lane, supra note 248, at 160.
466. See Sarah B. Lawsky, On the Edge: Declining Marginal Utility and Tax Policy, 95 MINN. L. REV. 904, 907-08 (2011).
467. See ARTHUR M. OKUN, EQUALITY AND EFFICIENCY: THE BIG TRADEOFF 96 (Brookings Inst. 1975).
468. See generally JOEL SLEMROD & JOHN BAKIJA, TAXING OURSELVES: A CITIZEN'S GUIDE TO THE DEBATE OVER TAXES 59-60 (4th ed. 2008).
469. NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 647.
470. Compare IRS 2012 DATA BOOK, supra note 21, at 49 tbl.21
471. with NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 647.
472. IRS 2012 DATA BOOK, supra note 21, at 49 tbl.21.
473. See NTA 2013 REPORT, supra note 273, at 324.
474. See LEGAL SERV. CORP., DOCUMENTING THE JUSTICE GAP IN AMERICA: THE CURRENT UNMET CIVIL LEGAL NEEDS OF LOW-INCOME AMERICANS 1, 1-2 (2009), http://www.lsc.gov/sites/default/files/LSC/pdfs/documenting-the-justice-gap-in-america-2009.pdf.
475. See Leandra Lederman & Warren B. Hrung, Do Attorneys Do Their Clients Justice? An Empirical Study of Lawyers' Effects on Tax Court Litigation Outcomes, 41 WAKE FOREST L. REV. 1235, 1241-52 (2006)
476. LEGAL SERV. CORP., supra note 341, at 24.
477. See Lederman & Hrung, supra note 342, at 1241-52.
478. See NTA 2012 REPORT, supra note 272, at 563 tbls.3.01 & 3.02 ;
479. Janene R. Finley & Allan Karnes, An Empirical Study of the Change in the Burden of Proof in the United States Tax Court, 6 PITT. TAX REV. 61, 78 (2008);
480. Lederman & Hrung, supra note 342, at 1259-60;
481. Laro, supra note 15, at 26-27.
482. See Stephanie H. McMahon, An Empirical Study of Innocent Spouse Relief: Do Courts Implement Congress's Legislative Intent? 12 FLA. TAX REV. 629, 668-69 (2012).
483. See Lederman & Hrung, supra note 342, at 1264.
484. John Guendelsberger, Circuit Court Decisions for December 2013 and Calendar Year 2013 Totals, in IMMIGRATION LAW ADVISOR (Exec. Office for Immigration Review, Jan. 2014) at 5-6.
485. See Jaya Ramji-Nogales et al., Refugee Roulette: Disparities in Asylum Adjudication, 60 STAN. L. REV. 295, 384 (2007).
486. see also Christopher J. Walker, Does the Legal Standard Matter? Empirical Answers to Justice Kennedy's Questions in Nken v. Holder, 75 OHIO ST. L.J. FURTHERMORE 29, 33-34 (2014), http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/students/groups/oslj/files/2012/10/Walker-Response-Final.pdf.
487. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B) (2012).
488. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
489. Emily Hammond, Court-Agency Dialogue: Article III's Dual Nature and the Boundaries of Reviewability, 82 GEO. WASH. L. REV. ARGUENDO, (forthcoming 2014) (manuscript at Part III) available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2504764;
490. see also Emily H. Hammond, Deference and Dialogue in Administrative Law, 111 COLUM. L. REV. 1722, 1739-71 (2011).
491. Hammond, Deference and Dialogue, supra note 359, at 1775.
492. See, e.g., Vt. Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 435 U.S. 519, 524 (1978).
493. These constraints are further addressed in Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
494. From 2000 to 2010, the court released written opinions for over 8,400 decisions. See 2000-2010 U.S. TAX CT. ANN. REP., supra note 17, at tbl.4.
495. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
496. Hammond, Deference and Dialogue, supra note 359, at 1780;
497. see also Gillian E. Metzger, Ordinary Administrative Law as Constitutional Common Law, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 479, 492 (2010).
498. See Walker, The Ordinary Remand Rule, supra note 40.
499. Laro, supra note 15, at 18.
500. See I.R.S. Notice CC-2013-011 (June7 2013).
501. See NAT'L TAXPAYER ADVOCATE, SPECIAL REPORT TO CONGRESS: POLITICAL ACTIVITY AND THE RIGHTS OF APPLICANTS FOR TAX-EXEMPT STATUS, vii-viii (June 30, 2013), http://www.taxpayeradvocate.irs.gov/userfiles/file/FullReport/Special-Report.pdf.
502. But see S. 725, 113th Cong. § 14 (2013).