[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
mock patriotism which preaches from the taxing power s vantage point and secretly
takes advantage of any loophole in the law. No tricks are advocated or alluded to
in this book, except to illustrate the fundamental differences between avoidance
and evasion preface, p. iii.
7. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
8. IRC §§6012 (a), 6072 (a), 6151 (a).
9. Quoted by Joy Mann, We All End Up Paying for Deadbeats, Washington
Post, January 6, 1995, p. E3. As evidence of the lack of compliance, Brand noted
that when the law was changed to require the listing of Social Security numbers for
dependents, Seven million dependents disappeared in the United States.
10. Chapter two contains much greater detail on audit processes and
procedures.
11. Specifi cally, the numbers are Warren 122, Burger 77, and Rehnquist
28.
12. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
111
112 NOTES
13. Welch v. Helvering 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
14. United States v. Davis 370 U.S. 65 (1962).
CHAPTER TWO: COURTS AND THE IRS
1. Offi ce of General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Quarterly Federal
Court Litigation Status Report, June 30, 2006.
2. IRC § 6213 (a).
3. According to Rule 80, a federal judge who serves for fi fteen years before
reaching the age of eighty can retire at full salary and thus at this point the salary
is guaranteed for life.
4. Congress has the power to create courts under the Constitution. The Tax
Court is a constitutional court by Congress under Article I as opposed to Article
III. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: The judicial Power of
the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. These judges have
lifetime tenure and salary protection. By contrast, Article I legislative courts have
fi xed terms and lack the salary guarantee (Ducat 1996).
5. Criminal tax cases in the Federal District Court are prosecuted in a much
shorter time frame. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial
before a jury.
CHAPTER THREE: TAX LITIGATION AND TAX FORUM CHOICE
1. For example, the late Paul Coverdall, Republican senator from Georgia,
noted the high incidence of audits on southerners, particularly poor southerners,
lamenting that the emphasis on attacking the poor is unconscionable (Pace
1998).
2. I exclude the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a third alternative, from this
analysis, since fewer cases were litigated in that court (see Daily 1992) during the
years of this study.
3. This represents over 4,000 decisions for the Tax Court and over 700
decisions for the District Court.
4. Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Tax Court, 2003. Title
XV, Rule 155, p. 96.
5. The party of each judge to have served on one of the modern circuits is
available in the Appellate Biographical Database (Zuk, Barrow, and Gryski 1997).
6. Segal, Timpone, and Howard also constructed a social liberalism score
(see Segal, Timpone, and Howard 1999).
7. In New York, for example, when Senator Alphonse D Amato and Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan were colleagues, the junior Republican Senator D Amato
allowed the senior Democratic Senator Moynihan one nomination in four when
Reagan and Bush held offi ce. During Clinton s term, Moynihan followed the same
custom in reverse.
8. There has been an ongoing debate about whether the Tax Court has a pro
IRS bias because several Tax Court judges have IRS experience and because earlier
NOTES 113
studies argued that taxpayers appear to do better in the District Courts than they
do in the Tax Court. However, the examination of the judges on the court did not
seem to support this. See chapter four for more information.
9. The appendix provides complete tables and details on the datasets and
methodology used for chapters two, three, and four.
CHAPTER FOUR: TAX DECISION MAKING
1. One journalist studying the tax system stated that the Ronald Reagan
appointee, Judge Cohen (chief justice during the examined time), had a well
established reputation as a real softie for . . . tax dodgers who appeared before her
(Johnston 2003).
2. Data for the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Courts were compiled
through Westlaw (www.westlaw.com) with the keyword tax and the appropriate
year added to the search.
3. For the District Court, it was the state of the appropriate district. For the
Tax Court, in almost all cases, the opinion cited the state of the taxpayer. When
that did not occur, the original docket fi ling was examined to determine the state
where the case was fi led.
CHAPTER FIVE: INFLUENCES ON THE IRS AND THE [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
zanotowane.pl doc.pisz.pl pdf.pisz.pl aikidobyd.xlx.pl
mock patriotism which preaches from the taxing power s vantage point and secretly
takes advantage of any loophole in the law. No tricks are advocated or alluded to
in this book, except to illustrate the fundamental differences between avoidance
and evasion preface, p. iii.
7. Steward Machine Co. v. Davis 301 U.S. 548 (1937)
8. IRC §§6012 (a), 6072 (a), 6151 (a).
9. Quoted by Joy Mann, We All End Up Paying for Deadbeats, Washington
Post, January 6, 1995, p. E3. As evidence of the lack of compliance, Brand noted
that when the law was changed to require the listing of Social Security numbers for
dependents, Seven million dependents disappeared in the United States.
10. Chapter two contains much greater detail on audit processes and
procedures.
11. Specifi cally, the numbers are Warren 122, Burger 77, and Rehnquist
28.
12. Commissioner v. Glenshaw Glass Co. 348 U.S. 426 (1955).
111
112 NOTES
13. Welch v. Helvering 290 U.S. 111 (1933).
14. United States v. Davis 370 U.S. 65 (1962).
CHAPTER TWO: COURTS AND THE IRS
1. Offi ce of General Counsel, Federal Trade Commission, Quarterly Federal
Court Litigation Status Report, June 30, 2006.
2. IRC § 6213 (a).
3. According to Rule 80, a federal judge who serves for fi fteen years before
reaching the age of eighty can retire at full salary and thus at this point the salary
is guaranteed for life.
4. Congress has the power to create courts under the Constitution. The Tax
Court is a constitutional court by Congress under Article I as opposed to Article
III. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution states: The judicial Power of
the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts
as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. These judges have
lifetime tenure and salary protection. By contrast, Article I legislative courts have
fi xed terms and lack the salary guarantee (Ducat 1996).
5. Criminal tax cases in the Federal District Court are prosecuted in a much
shorter time frame. A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to a speedy trial
before a jury.
CHAPTER THREE: TAX LITIGATION AND TAX FORUM CHOICE
1. For example, the late Paul Coverdall, Republican senator from Georgia,
noted the high incidence of audits on southerners, particularly poor southerners,
lamenting that the emphasis on attacking the poor is unconscionable (Pace
1998).
2. I exclude the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, a third alternative, from this
analysis, since fewer cases were litigated in that court (see Daily 1992) during the
years of this study.
3. This represents over 4,000 decisions for the Tax Court and over 700
decisions for the District Court.
4. Rules of Practice and Procedure, United States Tax Court, 2003. Title
XV, Rule 155, p. 96.
5. The party of each judge to have served on one of the modern circuits is
available in the Appellate Biographical Database (Zuk, Barrow, and Gryski 1997).
6. Segal, Timpone, and Howard also constructed a social liberalism score
(see Segal, Timpone, and Howard 1999).
7. In New York, for example, when Senator Alphonse D Amato and Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan were colleagues, the junior Republican Senator D Amato
allowed the senior Democratic Senator Moynihan one nomination in four when
Reagan and Bush held offi ce. During Clinton s term, Moynihan followed the same
custom in reverse.
8. There has been an ongoing debate about whether the Tax Court has a pro
IRS bias because several Tax Court judges have IRS experience and because earlier
NOTES 113
studies argued that taxpayers appear to do better in the District Courts than they
do in the Tax Court. However, the examination of the judges on the court did not
seem to support this. See chapter four for more information.
9. The appendix provides complete tables and details on the datasets and
methodology used for chapters two, three, and four.
CHAPTER FOUR: TAX DECISION MAKING
1. One journalist studying the tax system stated that the Ronald Reagan
appointee, Judge Cohen (chief justice during the examined time), had a well
established reputation as a real softie for . . . tax dodgers who appeared before her
(Johnston 2003).
2. Data for the U.S. Tax Court and the U.S. District Courts were compiled
through Westlaw (www.westlaw.com) with the keyword tax and the appropriate
year added to the search.
3. For the District Court, it was the state of the appropriate district. For the
Tax Court, in almost all cases, the opinion cited the state of the taxpayer. When
that did not occur, the original docket fi ling was examined to determine the state
where the case was fi led.
CHAPTER FIVE: INFLUENCES ON THE IRS AND THE [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]