Justice Thomas and Tax -- The Plot Sickens (10/29/23; 10/7/24)

Introduction: Today's topic is off-topic to tax procedure, although it does relate to trial of a tax case in problematic circumstances.

Justice Thomas’ most recently revealed conduct raising considerable controversy in ethics, legality (tax), and prudence is the alleged forgiveness in whole or part of a loan made to Justice Thomas by an alleged acquaintance (perhaps hanger-on) to acquire a luxury RV. Some alleged that, if the allegation is true, Justice Thomas had taxable income (lawyers call it cancellation of indebtedness (“COI”) income) or a nontaxable gift. Either characterization can create potential problems for Justice Thomas–if COI income, Justice Thomas might have tax reporting and paying obligations; if a gift, the “donor” would have tax reporting obligations.  I suggest in this post that the allegation it is both more subtle and potentially sinister than those claims.

From my days at DOJ Tax handling two cases, I believe that there is nuance that is missed in the claims discussed in the above paragraph. The two cases are Spartan Petroleum Company v. United States, 437 F. Supp. 733 (D.S.C. 1977) and Cooper v. United States, 1975 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11633 (S.D. ALA 1975).

Together, those cases held correctly that 

(i) a cancellation of indebtedness is not treated as COI income if the cancellation is a medium to make a transfer with another tax character (in Spartan Petroleum, the cancellation of indebtedness was additional consideration for transfer of property; btw there was a Tax Management portfolio that wrongly recommended that shuffle); and 

(ii) following through on the Spartan Petroleum holding, a cancellation of indebtedness can be a means to benefit the debtor having some tax character other than COI income. Thus, the COI can represent a gift which is not taxable income to the donee (Thomas potentially) but is a reportable gift potentially subject to gift tax to the donor.  Gift tax status requires that the motive for the gift (here, if applicable, by COI) be detached and disinterested generosity which is the debtor’s (Thomas' burden to prove). If it is not detached and disinterested generosity, the teaching of Cooper is that it is taxable income, because the motive is likely expecting some benefit or advantage the debtor could provide. Cooper was a prominent Alabama politician in the Wallace governing circle and in a good position to benefit the Bank of Pineapple and its principals, one of whom by the way at the time had the highest grades ever recorded at University of Alabama and, at a very young age, had been General Stillwell’s top aide in China; and his bank held a large amount of interest free state deposits.)  I took the bank President's deposition in the Eglin Air Force prison (a country club prison); he delivered the goods. In other words, in that case the COI was income for influence–a bribe with an expected or hoped for benefit.

A Conceptual Analysis of Chevron Footnote 9’s Approach to (Possibly) Mitigating Chevron Deference (10/15/23; 2/6/24)

I am working on a paper addressing the issue of whether APA § 10(e) of the original Administrative Procedure Act in 1946 (now codified at 5 USC § 706, here). My principal contribution is to bring the tax authorities into the discussion. Tax authorities are important to the discussion but have been overlooked or misunderstood by those writing on the subject.

Today’s blog addresses the commotion about whether rigorous statutory interpretation is a cure, in whole or in part, to so-called "reflexive deference." This topic was originally in the drafts of the paper, but I took it out to slim the paper down and now offer the discussion here.

The cure championed by some (e.g., Justice Kavanaugh) is to deploy rigorous statutory interpretation at Chevron Step One to determine the best interpretation without ambiguity. (Remember that only at Chevron Step Two after determining ambiguity does Chevron deference apply.) This approach is the so-called Chevron Footnote 9 approach based on Chevron’s footnote 9 (Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843 n9  (1984) (case citations omitted)):

   n9  The judiciary is the final authority on issues of statutory construction and must reject administrative constructions which are contrary to clear congressional intent. If a court, employing traditional tools of statutory construction, ascertains that Congress had an intention on the precise question at issue, that intention is the law and must be given effect.

The notion is that more rigorous interpretation will shrink the scope of the ambiguity and will shrink (or tame) the scope of deference. Deference deniers view this as a positive good to at least partially emasculate Chevron deference.

This blog is inspired by a tax phenomenon at the heart of abusive tax shelters sold with “opinions” written by prominent lawyers and accountants that the key legal edifice (and components) supporting a bullshit tax shelter opinion would “more likely than not” prevail. That type of legal opinion was inspired by the fact-finding concept that preponderance of the evidence meant a finding that, on the evidence, the fact was more likely than not. The fact-finding concept was sometimes conceptualized as a finding that the fact was more than 50% likely based on the evidence. A 50% or lesser likelihood meant the party bearing the burden of persuasion lost on that fact issue. So, in theory, if the fact-finder found that the fact was 51% likely the party bearing the burden of persuasion on that issue wins. I hope at this point you have spotted the problem—what exactly is the difference between 50% and 51% likelihood? Can a fact-finder really perceive that fine a difference in a way meaningful to make a rational fact-finding? Isn’t this a context where there is a range rather than a finite percentage. See in a similar context in fact-finding, John A. Townsend, Burden of Proof in Tax Cases: Valuation and Ranges—An Update, 73 Tax Lawyer 389 (2020), here.

Applying that theoretical concept to “law-finding,” what is the difference between a 51% and a 50% likelihood for a legal opinion. Can any rational or responsible law-finder—whether a judge in a case or a lawyer rendering a legal opinion--make that fine an analysis? Specifically, in the current context, is a judge’s or a lawyer’s belief that the likelihood of being the correct interpretation is 51% (proponent wins) or 50% (proponent loses) meaningful? Is that sliver of difference of 1% (or with finer tuning, .000001%) meaningful to anyone? See e.g., Daniel J. Hemel and Aaron L. Nielson, Chevron Step One-and-a-Half, 84 U. Chi. L. Rev. 757, 781-782 (2017) (using a similar spectrum analysis)

Update on Supreme Court Deference Case (with Speculation) and New Supreme Court case on General 6-year Statute for Challenging Regulations Interpretations (Without Speculation) (10/1/23)

 Loper Bright (22-451)

The Supreme Court docket for the October Term includes Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (SEC) (Sup. Ct. Dkt. 22-451 here.) (“Loper Bright”) where the issue for which certiorari was granted is:

Whether the Court should overrule Chevron or, at least clarify that statutory silence concerning controversial powers expressly but narrowly granted elsewhere in the statute does not constitute an ambiguity requiring deference to the agency.

After being quiet on Chevron for several years (at least in an outcome-determinative sense), the Court appears poised to make some statement about Chevron. As I read the earlier decision in Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 589 U.S. ___, 2400 (2019) (“Kisor”) (GS, here), where the Court approved so-called Auer deference to reasonable agency subregulatory interpretations of ambiguous regulations text, the Court could not have rendered the decision in Kisor without thinking that Chevron deference was still good law. If that is true, I speculate (correctly or not) the outcome in Loper Bright. (Emphasis on outcome.) I undertook this speculation in preparing a paper where the paper discusses the tax deference opinions before the APA was enacted in 1946 which have been largely ignored in discussing the meaning of APA 5 USC § 706, here [§ 10(e) of the original APA] and how central they were to the shape of the text of §10(e) [§ 706].

I undertook the speculation on the assumption that those voting in the majority to adopt Auer deference as formulated would vote to accept Chevron deference. The Court fine-tuned Auer deference in Kisor and perhaps that may be what happens in Loper Bright. 

Of course, there have been two key changes on the Court since Kisor – Justices Ginsburg and Breyer, both accepting deference in Kisor, are no longer on the Court and have been replaced by Justices Barrett and Jackson. I infer that Justice Barrett will vote to overturn or severely constrict Chevron deference (E.g., E.g., Jeremy W. Peters, Trump’s New Judicial Litmus Test: ‘Shrinking the Administrative State’ (NYT 3/26/18)); I infer that Justice Jackson will vote to approve Chevron deference, perhaps joining a majority will want to constrict somewhat the sweep of Chevron deference as it did for Auer deference in Kisor.

I assume that the Justices still on the Court who voted to accept Auer deference in Kisor will vote for Chevron deference. Those Justices are Kagan and Sotomayor and perhaps Roberts (although not clear to me). The reverse of that is true as to those Justices voting against Auer deference or constricting it to equipoise. Those Justice are Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch.  I think Justice Roberts as in Kisor might be persuaded by stare decisis, and Justice Kavanaugh may approve Chevron on the basis he approved Kisor (with rigorous Chevron Footnote 9 interpretation, which, as he articulates it in Kisor, comes close to rejecting deference without formally rejection of Chevron deference except in rare interpretive equipoise where the court cannot determine that the agency interpretation is not best). 

So the lineup I see is:

For deference: Kagan, Sotomayor, Jackson

Against deference: Thomas, Aito, Gorsuch, and Barrett

Can't call: Roberts and Kavanaugh.

Corner Post (No. 22-1008)