Loper Bright’s Effects on the § 6751(b) Regulations (Herein Difference Between Regulations and Interpretations) (8/7/25)

I am today considering the wonders and discontinuities of Loper Bright Ent. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024)(“Loper Bright”). I do this in the context of updating my Federal Tax Procedure Book editions. For this blog, I zero in on one facet related to Loper Bright’s perceived command that courts apply de novo the best statutory interpretation (whether or not it is the agency interpretation). The general rule is that judicial interpretations apply retroactively to the effective date of the statute. Harper v. Va. Dep't of Taxation, 509 U.S. 86 (1993). 

The context is the § 6751(b) regulations. 26 C.F.R. § 301.6751(b)-1, with an effective date of December 23, 2024. Those regulations were promulgated to resolve the inconsistent interpretations of § 6751(b) as courts flailed around, often inconsistently, to apply the textually nonsensical statute. Loper Bright denied Chevron deference from the fiction of statutory ambiguity, but said nothing about a statute that is ambiguous and textually nonsense. That requires that either (i) § 6751(b)  is facially invalid with no application or (ii) susceptible to interpretation which will require that lines be drawn similar to the way a line was drawn in United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967) (adopting the agency sleep and rest interpretive line for the statutory “away from home” requirement). In other words, a best interpretation could not be made until some authority draws the line.

At least in theory, in order to pass Loper Bright muster, the § 6751(b) interpretive regulations must state the best interpretation. For purposes of this discussion, I distinguish between the interpretation and the regulation which adopts the interpretation. The best interpretation should apply from the effective date of the statute. That means, for example, that the § 7805(b) limitations on retroactive effective dates for interpretive regulations may still apply to the regulation but are meaningless if the regulations state the best interpretation.

This phenomenon was always true but perhaps was not true for agency interpretations of ambiguous text that had no best interpretation from the effective date of the statute, but with a best interpretation discernible only by some action, such as a regulation interpretation, that permitted a best interpretation to be applied. E.g., United States v. Correll, 389 U.S. 299 (1967) (once the line drawing was approved in Correll, it applied to all pending and future cases).

Thus, the conundrum of effective dates for the § 6751(b) regulations is presented. If the interpretations in the § 6751(b) regulations are best interpretations, they apply from the effective date of the statute and should apply to pending Tax Court cases for periods prior to the regulations’ effective date of December 2024. If that is right, should not the courts in pending cases for periods prior to the December 2024 effective date be considering whether the regulations interpretation (not the regulation) applies. If the § 6751(b)  regulations are best interpretations for validity, why should courts for those pre-effective date periods not apply the best interpretations. In other words, why are Tax Court judges applying the mish-mash of interpretations preceding the effective date of the § 6751(b) regulations without considering the § 6751(b) interpretations? See e.g., Hancock County Land Acquisitions LLC v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-50.

Tax Court Rejects a Bullshit Tax Shelter False Valuation Claim with Warning of Sanctions for Taxpayers, their Counsel, and Expert Witness Proffering the Bullshit (7/16/25; 7/18/25)

I write today on a “dictated” oral decision at the conclusion of trial in Veribest Vesta, LLC, True North Resources, LLC, v. Commissioner (T.C. Dkt # 9158-23; docket entries here at docket # 199). Bottom line, the taxpayer’s (only because they got caught) claim went “True South.”

Note on Tax Court Orders: Orders can be relatively short dealing with routine procedural matters or may be longer when they serve the same function as T.C.M. opinions. Juge Buch’s opinion is the latter sort where he enters as an a one-page order attaching his lengthy findings of fact and conclusions dictated into the record at the close of the lengthy trial. This Order serves as the report (same as T.C. and T.C.M. opinions) required by § 7459(a), here. One difference between an Order and the other Tax Court opinions is that the Order does not list counsel. Readers can identify counsel for the parties by clicking the docket entries link above and clicking at the box on upper right for a printed docket sheet.

Veribest involved a standard plain vanilla bullshit Syndicated Conservation Easement shelter, with many Tax Court opinions and Circuit Court affirmances in other similar cases preceding Veribest in essence calling out the bullshit. Some cases have been decided on other grounds, but there was always a common problem of false hyper-inflated valuations of the easements; often (I can’t say always) the valuations claimed were many, many times the real cost of the whole property (including the easement) reasonably close to the date the easement was carved out and “donated” to a willing “charity.” There could be several procedural footfaults for claiming deductions, but false overvaluations have been a common feature of many bullshit tax shelters since the days of Jackie Fine Arts and Barrister. Old timers will remember those shelters from the 1970s and 1980s.

In the SCE cases that have barraged the Tax Court dockets with much wasted resources involving many lawyers making lots of money, one feature has been the taxpayers (through their lawyers making lots of money) proffering expert witnesses who lack credibility. I include at the end of this blog some earlier blog offerings in bullshit tax shelters (including one-off rather than syndicated) with valuations that were not credible.

Today, I want to note Judge Buch’s warning of the potential for Section 6673 penalties. Section 6673, here, is titled “Sanctions and costs awarded by courts.” The Section permits the Tax Court to award costs:

Is Consistency the Hobgoblin of Small Minds for Chief Justice Roberts? Herein of Loper Bright and Chevron (7/10/25)

I was just today pointed to Perttu v. Richards, 605 U.S. ___ (6/18/25), SC here, I was interested because, although not a case about Chevron or Loper Bright (citing neither Chevron or Loper Bright or using the word deference in either Chief Justice Roberts’ Opinion of the Court or Justice Barrett’s dissent), Chief Justice Roberts says this (Slip Op. 6, of the Opinion and p. 10 of the pdf (because the Syllabus precedes the Opinion, here):

That usual practice matters for interpreting the statute because “Congress is understood to legislate against a background of common-law adjudicatory principles . . . with an expectation that the principle[s] will apply except ‘when a statutory purpose to the contrary is evident.’”

I am interested in the quote because I am authoring an article on Loper Bright also authored by Chief Justice Roberts. I think it is commonly understood that Chevron deference had achieved the status of a common law adjudicatory principle by the time Loper Bright was decided. So, how could Chief Justice Roberts say with a straight face (or maybe a straight computer keyboard) that the Court should honor common law adjudicatory principles in Richards but not in Loper Bright? Congress was certainly legislating with Chevron as a background common law principle (as Justice Kagan notes in her Loper Bright dissent at pp. 463-464 here and Chief Justice Roberts ignores in his Opinion of the Court in Loper Bright)? (This is my reason for referring to the "small minds" aphorism in the title to this blog.)

If anyone has thoughts on this conundrum, please let me know either by comment to this article or by email to jack@tjtaxlaw.com. If appropriate and the commenter gives permission, I will acknowledge the credit in the article.

* Note that the Loper Bright page numbers and links are to the Preliminary Print (as opposed to the Slip Op.) which has “preliminary” page numbers that may change before the final U.S. volume. And, of course, the Richards quote is from the Slip Opinion not yet incorporated in a Preliminary Print. 

Tax Court Applies Statutory Stare Decisis for Chevron Cases (7/3/25)

In Moxon Corporation v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 2 (2025), TC here dkt # 59 and GS [to come], the Court held that (from the headnote):

          Held: The I.R.C. § 6662(h) penalties at issue are not subject to deficiency procedures pursuant to I.R.C. § 6230(a)(2)(A)(i).

          Held, further, the fact that the relevant deficiencies were improperly assessed does not affect R’s assessments regarding, and ability to collect, the I.R.C. § 6662(h) penalties.

 (I use the headnote because I think it fairly summarizes the opinion and introduces the subject I want to discuss—statutory stare decisis.)

In respect to the second holding above, the Tax Court invoked statutory stare decisis to apply a prior precedent relying on Chevron deference, saying rather cryptically (see Slip Op. 12-13):

          In addition the Supreme Court cautioned that by overruling Chevron it did not “call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework. The holdings of those cases . . . are still subject to statutory stare decisis despite [the Supreme Court’s] change in interpretive methodology.” Loper Bright, 144 S. Ct. at 2273. Regardless  of the extent to which the holding in Thompson [Thompson v. Commissioner, 137 T.C. 220, 239  (2011)] relies on the standard of review set forth in Chevron, that holding is entitled to stare decisis.

          We again hold that penalties determined in a partnership-level proceeding are not subject to deficiency procedures pursuant to section 6230(a)(2)(A)(i). Rather, such penalties are assessable by the Commissioner. Taxpayers may raise any partner-level defenses to the penalties in a refund action or in a CDP case. § 6230(c)(1)(C), (4); McNeill, 148 T.C. at 489.

           Moxon arrived after I had already made substantial changes to the statutory stare decisis discussion in working draft for the 2025 Federal Tax Procedure (Practitioner and Student Editions). I have further revised that discussion to include Moxon. For readers who may have an interest in the issue, I include below a copy and paste of the text of the revisions without footnotes as of today and link here the revisions (red-lined) with footnotes (note that the footnotes, page numbers and cross-references will change in the final, although as I note below the final will be significantly shortened).

Tax Court Invalidates Regulation on CPAR/BBA Partnership FPA Limitations Period and Holds Partnership Adequately Disclosed to Avoid Limitations Extension (7/3/24)

In JM Assets, LP v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___ No. 1 (7/2/25) (reviewed opinion with no dissents), TC here dkt #46 and GS here [to come], the Court invalidated a regulation that, if valid, would have extended the period for a final partnership adjustment under the CPAR/BBA beyond the statutory period of 330 days. The FPA is the final action imposing the imputed tax at the partnership level under CPAR/BBA.

 The Court offers the following “latest possible dates” for a valid FPA (Slip Op. 12-13):

(1) three years after the date on which the partnership return was filed, I.R.C. § 6235(a)(1)(A); (2) three years after the due date of the return, I.R.C. § 6235(a)(1)(B); (3) three years after the date on which the partnership filed an administrative adjustment request under section 6227, I.R.C. § 6235(a)(1)(C); (4) in the case of a proposed partnership adjustment under section 6231(a)(2), the date that is 330 days (plus any extension under 6225(c)(7)) after the date of such a notice, I.R.C. § 6235(a)(3); or (5) in the case of a modification request made pursuant to section 6225(c), 270 days (plus any extension under 6225(c)(7)) after the date on which everything required to be submitted to the Secretary pursuant to such section is so submitted, I.R.C. § 6235(a)(2).

JM Assets involved (5) relating to modification requests.

I don’t think there is anything surprising in that interpretation of the statutory text under Loper Bright’s de novo interpretation standard. I should note that the IRS argued unsuccessfully for delegated interpretive authority for the regulation of the type Loper Bright approved.

I think the more interesting part of JM Assets is its conclusion that the FPA period was not extended by § 6235(c)(2) which provides that for an extension for the FPA if there is a substantial omission of income as defined by § 6501(e)(1)(A). That part of opinion deals with the general tax extension in the latter section. I discuss the general tax extension in my Federal Tax Procedure (Practitioner Edition pp. 198-199; Student Edition pp. 138-139).

Update on IRS Form 11457 for Voluntary Disclosure in IRS VDP (6/30/25)

 The National Taxpayer Advocate announced that, at her urging, the IRS has agreed:

1. to eliminate the Part II (complete upon acceptance into the VDP) checkbox

2. to establish a “working group to comprehensively review the current VDP, provide recommendations for reforming the program, narrow the definition of illegal source income to encourage greater participation in the VDP, and clarify other terms.”

See Criminal VDP: TAS Reports a Win For Taxpayers – IRS Agrees to Remove Willfulness Checkbox on VDP Application Form (NTA Blog 6/24/25), here.

I revised the working draft of the Federal Tax Procedure 2025 Editions (to be published at least by early August 2025) to include this information. Perhaps the key issues I mention in the working draft are:

• As of the date of this publication, the Form available on the IRS website is dated 11/12/24 and thus does not yet implement that decision. Can a taxpayer in the meantime omit checking the box in the currently available Form?;

Billy Long Confirmed as IRS Commissioner of Internal Revenue (6/15/25)

On June 12, 2025, the Senate confirmed President’s Trump’s nomination of Billy Long as Commissioner of Internal Revenue. See Wikipedia, Billy Long, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Long (Last edited 6/15/25 and viewed 6/15/25). I just updated the working draft for the 2025 editions of my Federal Tax Procedure Book. I copy and paste the relevant portion as of 6/15/25 with footnotes (note that the footnote numbers in the working draft, but in the final will certainly be different): 

                   3.     Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

           The Commissioner of Internal Revenue is a Presidential appointee confirmed by the Senate. The Commissioner heads the vast IRS bureaucracy. n216 Historically, the Commissioner has been a leading tax practitioner, most often a tax lawyer. Because of the perception that tax practitioners may not be the best managers, the statute now requires that the Commissioner have “demonstrated ability in management.”n217 Tax practitioners are not necessarily excluded, but the field is much broader now.
   n216 § 7803.
   n217 § 7803(a)(1)(A).

          On June 12, 2025, the Senate confirmed President Trump’s choice for Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The nomination and confirmation were controversial because (i) the confirmation was preceded by chaos among the acting IRS leadership,n218 and (ii), more importantly, Long has no or no credible experience in either tax or management experience.n219 Nevertheless, he is the Commissioner now. n220
   n218  Political Thrashing Around Acting Commissioners and Commissioner of Internal Revenue (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 4/18/25; 4/19/25).
   n219 Professionally (if that is the right word), Long was a realtor and auctioneer until serving in the House of Representatives from 2011-2023. Long attended college but did not graduate, subsequently graduating from the Missouri Auction School. In 2023, Long became a “tax consultant” promoting dubious tax claims related to Employee Retention Credits. In that role, he promoted himself as a “Certified Tax & Business Consultant,” a title he earned by attending a three-day course offered by a tax promoter. See Wikipedia, Billy Long, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billy_Long (Last edited 6/15/25 and viewed 6/15/25). JAT Editorial Comment: Long appears to have no relevant qualifications to be Commissioner of Internal Revenue other than sycophancy to President Trump which is the only credential he needed to be approved by the Senate on a party line vote. While awaiting his Senate confirmation, Long served as Senior Advisor in OPM (Office of Management and Budget). It is unclear to me what role he served as Senior Advisor, but I suppose one salient benefit was that, receiving a Government salary, he would have been foreclosed from abusing the tax system as he did before taking the Senior Advisor role. (That is, if he honored conflicts of interest policies, although Trump and his minions appear to have only passing acquaintance, if any, with conflicts of interest policies.)
   n220 Perhaps someone will litigate the issue of whether Long is statutorily disqualified for the position.

Supreme Court Holds that Tax Court Levy CDP Jurisdiction is Mooted by Satisfaction of Underlying Assessment (6/13/25)

I previously blogged on the

• Third Circuit's opinion in Zuch v. Commissioner, 97 F.4th 81 (3rd Cir. 2024). 3rd Circuit Holds Tax Court Has Jurisdiction to Determine Overpayments in CDP Proceedings (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 3/29/24; 3/30/24), here; and
• The Supreme Court's granting of the Government's petition for writ of certiorari. Supreme Court Accepts Cert in Zuch as to Mootness in CDP where IRS Collected by Offset the Tax Subject to Levy (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 1/13/25), here.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court decided Zuch, holding that the Tax Court loses jurisdiction over a CDP case when the assessment supporting the original proposed levy has been paid so that there is nothing behind the levy. See Opinion of the Court by Justice Barrett, joined by all other Justices except Gorsuch who dissented (SC here and GS here [to come]). The Opinion of the Court is a short (at least for Opinions of the Court) and relatively straightforward opinion. I therefore will not belabor readers with a scholarly (perhaps pseudo-scholarly) discussion of the opinion. My off-hand summary is that what is in issue in a levy CDP case is the levy and once the proposed levy is mooted by satisfaction of the underlying assessment, there is nothing left for the Tax Court to do.

So, I get back to the questions I considered in the blog entry reporting the granting of cert. The relevant ones are:

A Primer on Judicial Review of Tax Regulations after Loper Bright (6/4/25; 6/6/25)

Loper Bright held that courts review interpretive regulations de novo rather than with possible deference under the prior Chevron regime. Here are my bullet points focusing primarily on notice and comment Treasury regulations (the type subject to possible deference under the Chevron regime):

• Loper Bright de novo review means that the court will determine and apply the best interpretation (whether or not the regulation interpretation is the best interpretation).
• The sole exception to de novo review is that courts will apply some type of deference (I call it Loper Bright deference) if the statute explicitly or fairly implies the agency is to have discretion in the interpretation.
• Under Skidmore, courts may use the agency interpretation to help reach the best interpretation, (Skidmore is often called deference, but it is not deference because the court must still determine and apply the best interpretation and only uses the persuasiveness of the agency interpretation to determine the best interpretation; Skidmore is better described as “respect” rather than deference; deference means the court applies the agency “not best” interpretation rather than its own best interpretation.)
• Interpretive regulations may also be reviewed for procedural regularity under the APA § 706(2)(A)'s “arbitrary and capricious” standard (also called “hard look” review), a deferential standard that is, theoretically, much more agency-forgiving standard than de novo review standard.

I think it may be helpful to elaborate on the last bullet point. A prominent instance in tax of such arbitrary and capricious review is Hewitt v. Commissioner, 21 F.4th 1336 (11th Cir. 2021), here, holding that Treasury failed in the notice and comment process to address material comments; the court did not hold (see p. 1339 n. 1) that if Treasury had not committed that procedural footfault, the interpretation would have been invalid under the Chevon regime (now replaced by the Loper Bright de novo regime for testing interpretations). For a recent statement of how this works, the Supreme Court said in Seven County Infrastructure Coalition v. Eagle County, Colorado, 605 U.S. ___,  ___ S.Ct. ___ [to come], 2025 WL 1520964 (2025), SC here and GS here (quote is from Supreme Court Slip Op. 8-9):

    As a general matter, when an agency interprets a statute, judicial review of the agency's interpretation is de novo. See Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U. S. 369, 391-392 (2024). But when an agency exercises discretion granted by a statute, judicial review is typically conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act's deferential arbitrary-and-capricious standard. Under that standard, a court asks not whether it agrees with the agency decision, but rather only whether the agency action was reasonable and reasonably explained. See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983); FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S. 414, 423 (2021). 

More on Whether Treasury/IRS Interpretations under § 7805(a) Are Entitled to Loper Bright Deference? (5/29/25; 5/30/25)

I write today to address the issue of whether  § 7805(a) is the type of provision that Loper Bright would treat as a delegation to the Treasury/IRS that qualifies for what I call “Loper Bright deference” (for lack of a better word). By Loper Bright deference, I mean some authoritative gravitas for agency interpretations beyond Skidmore respect (Skidmore requires the Court to be persuaded that the agency interpretation is the best and is not deference, despite some claims otherwise). Some readers of this blog may recall that I have addressed the § 7805(a) issue in two prior blogs:

• Do General Authority Congressional Delegations of Authority to Prescribe Regulations to Carry Out the Provisions of the Statute Qualify for Loper Bright Deference? (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 11/12/24), here.

• Can § 7805(a) & (b) Be Read as Delegating to Treasury/IRS Interpretive Authority with Deference (Federal Tax Procedure Blog 7/14/24), here.

I am prompted to return to the issue by a recent article By Professor Mitchell M. Gans [bio here], Has the Supreme Court Already Resolved How Loper Bright Applies to Section 7805 Regulations?, 187 Tax Notes Fed. 1069 (May 12, 2025), here. Professor Gans argues that, sub silentio, the Supreme Court in Bondi v. VanDerStok, ___ U.S. ___, 145 S. Ct. 857 (2025) effectively decided that § 7805(a) is not entitled to Loper Bright deference by applying the Skidmore factors to a statute under the Gun Control Act that is functionally the same as § 7805(a). For those wishing to read VanDerStok, the Supreme Court slip opinion is here and the GS opinion (paginated to 145 S.Ct.) is here. (Caveat: some refer to the respondent in the case as Vanderstok; the proper name is VanDerStok. See the petition here and the slip opinion where most but not all references are to VanDerStok.)

I do not agree with Professor Gans’ reading of VanDerStok. I don’t read VanDerStok as a Skidmore case where the court gives the agency interpretation some oomph beyond what the statutory text and context would allow. None of the opinions in VanDerStok mention Skidmore or deference. VanDerStok involved the propriety of a facial challenge to the agency interpretation. A facial challenge requires that there is no realistic set of circumstances in which the interpretation could be valid. (By contrast, an as applied challenge claims only that as applied to the plaintiff, the interpretation is not valid.) The Court spends most of its time analyzing the consistency of the interpretation with the statute and its context, a type of classic de novo interpretation. 

Most instructively, the VanDerStok opinion for the Court, in closing, dismisses a lenity argument. Lenity is an interpretive rule for interpretations in a criminal or penalty context that resolves ambiguity in favor of the person subject to the criminal law or penalty. (Something like the now rejected Chevron deference requiring ambiguity.) The Court says (145 S.Ct. at 876; bold face supplied by me):