Tax Court on Default Rules in Statutory Interpretation-Herein Also of Chevron, Loper Bright and APA § 706(2(A) (11/14/25)

In Apache Corp. v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___ No. 11 (11/1325), reviewed opinion, the Court addressed the momentous (to some) issue of whether a taxpayer electing not to carryback some categories of net operating losses (NOLs) can reserve in the election to carryback other categories of NOLs. The opinions in Appache may be viewed on the Tax Court Docket Sheet for Case # 25984-22, here, at #56, on my Google Drive here, on GS here, and on TN here.  I must say that I have neither worried nor lost sleep over that issue, either before or after this opinion. As respects the issue actually decided in Apache, I am agnostic which may be an admission that I have not really dug deeply into the issue. So, I don’t propose here to deal with the merits of the issue decided.

I want to address the methodology in reaching the majority opinion and Judge Buch’s concurring opinion.

Judge Buch’s concurring opinion (Slip Op. 22-23) is very short. If I may summarize a very short opinion:

(i)          the statutory text is inconclusive on the competing interpretations which are equally plausible, phenomenon I describe as statutory ambiguity where a best interpretation cannot be made; and

(ii)        where the statute is ambiguous, courts are “inclined to rely on the traditional canon that construes revenue-raising laws against their drafter.”

The majority determines that the statutory text is not ambiguous but then says (Slip Op. 18-19) that the default rule Judge Buch relies on should carry the day even if the text were ambiguous (calling it a “tiebreaking principle"). As stated, this supposed principle, sometimes stated as a canon or maxim of interpretation, operates like the rule of lenity that construes criminal statutes in favor of a defendant, which is a default rule in cases of ambiguity. See e.g., Ryan D. Doerfler, The "Ambiguity" Fallacy, 88 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 1110, 1116 (2020) (referring to Chevron and lenity as default rules); Intisar A. Rabb, The Appellate Rule of Lenity: Responding to Abbe R. Gluck & Richard A. Posner, Statutory Interpretation on the Bench: A Survey of Forty-Two Judges on the Federal Courts of Appeals, 131 Harv. L. Rev. 179, 194 N. 77 (2018) (Same re lenity).

That interpretive methodology in ambiguity is a default rule similar to the Chevron default rule prior to Chevron’s demise in Loper Bright. As readers of this blog and observers in general know, Loper Bright overruled Chevron and thus the Chevron default rule does not apply in a state of ambiguity as between two or more interpretations, one of which is an agency interpretation qualifying for Chevron deference (generally notice and comment interpretive regulations).

Tax Court in Unanimous Reviewed Opinion Interprets and Applies the Accuracy-Related Economic Substance Penalty (11/12/25)

In Patel v. Commissioner, 165 T.C. ___, No. 10 (11/12/25) (unanimous reviewed opinion), the Tax Court (Judge Jones) applied the interpreted the requirements of the accuracy-related penalty for transactions that lack economic substance, § 6662(b)(6), which applies the economic substance doctrine as codified under I.R.C. § 7701(o). The Opinion (for which there is yet no Tax Court permalink, may be reviewed in the Tax Court docket entries for the lead case, here at # 421, dated 11/12/25, on my Google Drive here, on TN here, and on GS here. The transaction at issue was yet another captive insurance case, but addressed for the first time the economic substance accuracy-related penalty.

The Tax Court earlier had shot down the particular captive insurance on the substantive tax merits in Patel v. Commissioner (Patel I), T.C. Memo. 2020-133, here, and Patel v. Commissioner (Patel II), T.C. Memo. 2024-34, here. The new Patel opinion addresses penalty issues not resolved in the prior opinions.

The new Patel opinion offers a relatively straightforward application of the statutory text to a transaction that, in my opinion from the prior Patel opinions, lacked economic substance and was the type of transaction to which the penalty should apply. Indeed, I think the Court’s application of the principles of statutory interpretation, although I think wooden, are what the current judicial environment requires (including a bow to legislative history “For those who consider legislative history relevant.” (Slip Op. 18-19); as phrased, it is not clear whether Judge Jones for the Court felt legislative history was relevant).

Readers of this blog entry are directed to the opinion for the Court’s reasoning and steps.

JAT Comments/Musings:

I offer just the following comments that caught my specific attention as I wandered through the Opinion (in order as they arise in the opinion and not necessarily in order of importance):

1. A host of amici briefs were filed; they are identified at Slip Op. 2 n. 2. The Opinion identifies the amici briefs in the footnote but otherwise does not refer to them. The footnote does add: 

At respondent’s request, we ordered the parties to file briefs in response to the amicus briefs. At the parties’ request, we held oral argument on the issues raised by the briefs.

I have not seen the amici briefs but, since the Court does not refer otherwise to them, I am not going to speculate what effect amici briefs had to the outcome. I will say that I have known the Patels’ lead counsel for some time, he is a very good tax litigator, and assume that he covered the bases in the briefs on which his name appears.

2. The Opinion says (Slip Op. 3 n. 5): “We understand the interaction of section 6662(a) and (b)(6) to impose a single penalty. Because the Commissioner determined that penalty for multiple years (each of the tax years at issue), we will refer to it in the plural (penalties).” Think about that unexplained comment.

Tax Court Yet Again Finds Bullshit Conservation Easement Grossly Overvalued (11/4/25; 11/16/25)

In Paul Adams Quarrry Trust v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2025-112, GS here and TN here, the Tax Court (Judge Toro) shot down another bullshit conservation easement gambit (this time not a syndicated one, but following the same game plan). As common in such cases, the Court found that the claimed value of the easement was grossly excessive, resulting in denial of most of the amount claimed and imposition of the gross valuation misstatement penalty under I.R.C. § 6662(a) and (h).

Worthy of note is the Court’s opening paragraph:

This case concerns the contribution of a conservation easement by Paul-Adams Quarry Trust, LLC (PaulAdams), in 2017. Petitioner is Francis L. (Rusty) Adams, Paul-Adams’s tax matters partner.1 Petitioner’s heightened rhetoric aside, this is not a difficult case. The principal question before the Court is the value of the easement Paul-Adams granted to the Oconee River Land Trust (Oconee Trust) in December 2017 over approximately 207 acres in Elberton, Georgia (Paul-Adams property). The easement restricted what Paul-Adams [*7] could do in the future with those 207 acres. Paul-Adams claimed in its return that the restriction reduced the value of the Paul-Adams property by $10,234,108. This claim has no basis in reality, and we therefore reject it.

The Court repeats this theme throughout the 100+ pages of the opinion.