前政府官员支持被告,中投服务有限责任公司诉美国国税局案的法庭之友摘要

Daniel Hemel, S. Morse, Clint Wallace
{"title":"前政府官员支持被告,中投服务有限责任公司诉美国国税局案的法庭之友摘要","authors":"Daniel Hemel, S. Morse, Clint Wallace","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3693452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is a case about tax shelters. It presents a narrow legal question: May people and companies that promote abusive tax shelters sue to block enforcement of monetary penalties for failing to disclose those tax avoidance transactions to the IRS? But the practical question is far broader. At stake is whether the tax-shelter industry will be permitted to use waves of strategic pre-enforcement lawsuits to hobble the IRS’s efforts to combat abusive tax shelters. \n \nThe narrow legal question can and should be decided based on the plain statutory text. Petitioner seeks to permanently restrain the IRS from imposing penalties for failure to disclose certain “micro-captive insurance” transactions that taxpayers use to claim losses. Petitioner has advertised these transactions as “tax shelters.” Congress has deemed these penalties to be “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. And that Act expressly bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” by “any person.” Petitioner’s suit therefore seeks to “restrain” the “assessment” of a penalty that Congress has defined as a “tax.” That alone is enough to resolve this case. \n \nBut, as this brief shows, broader historical context and practical consequences confirm why it is important for this Court to follow the plain statutory text. This case does not arise in a vacuum. It arises against the backdrop of a decades-long struggle between the federal agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and an industry consisting of accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance companies, and others working in concert to defeat those laws. A ruling for petitioner would mark a resounding win for the tax-shelter industry and a significant setback for the government in its ongoing effort to reveal and challenge abusive tax shelters. It could cost the federal treasury billions of dollars annually. \n \nPetitioner’s effort to frustrate tax assessment is exactly the kind of demand that the Anti-Injunction Act seeks to prevent. Rather than hand the tax-shelter industry a powerful new tool to thwart the assessment of taxes on a massive scale, this Court should apply the statute as written and affirm. \n \nAMICI: \n \nLily Batchelder: Majority Chief Tax Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance (2010–2014) and Deputy Director, National Economic Council (2014–2015). \n \nMark Mazur: Staff Economist, Joint Committee on Taxation (1989–1993); Director of Research, Analysis, and Statistics of Income, IRS (2001–2009); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis (2009–2012); and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (2012–2017). \n \nEileen J. O’Connor: Assistant Attorney General of the United States, responsible for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (2001–2007). \n \nLeslie Samuels: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (1993–1996). \n \nStephen Shay: International Tax Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury (1986–1987) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Tax Affairs (2009–2011). \n \nGeorge Yin: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation (2003–2005).","PeriodicalId":330166,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","volume":"40 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Hemel, S. Morse, Clint Wallace\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.3693452\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is a case about tax shelters. It presents a narrow legal question: May people and companies that promote abusive tax shelters sue to block enforcement of monetary penalties for failing to disclose those tax avoidance transactions to the IRS? But the practical question is far broader. At stake is whether the tax-shelter industry will be permitted to use waves of strategic pre-enforcement lawsuits to hobble the IRS’s efforts to combat abusive tax shelters. \\n \\nThe narrow legal question can and should be decided based on the plain statutory text. Petitioner seeks to permanently restrain the IRS from imposing penalties for failure to disclose certain “micro-captive insurance” transactions that taxpayers use to claim losses. Petitioner has advertised these transactions as “tax shelters.” Congress has deemed these penalties to be “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. And that Act expressly bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” by “any person.” Petitioner’s suit therefore seeks to “restrain” the “assessment” of a penalty that Congress has defined as a “tax.” That alone is enough to resolve this case. \\n \\nBut, as this brief shows, broader historical context and practical consequences confirm why it is important for this Court to follow the plain statutory text. This case does not arise in a vacuum. It arises against the backdrop of a decades-long struggle between the federal agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and an industry consisting of accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance companies, and others working in concert to defeat those laws. A ruling for petitioner would mark a resounding win for the tax-shelter industry and a significant setback for the government in its ongoing effort to reveal and challenge abusive tax shelters. It could cost the federal treasury billions of dollars annually. \\n \\nPetitioner’s effort to frustrate tax assessment is exactly the kind of demand that the Anti-Injunction Act seeks to prevent. Rather than hand the tax-shelter industry a powerful new tool to thwart the assessment of taxes on a massive scale, this Court should apply the statute as written and affirm. \\n \\nAMICI: \\n \\nLily Batchelder: Majority Chief Tax Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance (2010–2014) and Deputy Director, National Economic Council (2014–2015). \\n \\nMark Mazur: Staff Economist, Joint Committee on Taxation (1989–1993); Director of Research, Analysis, and Statistics of Income, IRS (2001–2009); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis (2009–2012); and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (2012–2017). \\n \\nEileen J. O’Connor: Assistant Attorney General of the United States, responsible for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (2001–2007). \\n \\nLeslie Samuels: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (1993–1996). \\n \\nStephen Shay: International Tax Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury (1986–1987) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Tax Affairs (2009–2011). \\n \\nGeorge Yin: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation (2003–2005).\",\"PeriodicalId\":330166,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"volume\":\"40 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-09-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3693452\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law & Society: Public Law - Tax eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3693452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这是一个关于避税的案子。它提出了一个狭义的法律问题:促进滥用避税的个人和公司是否可以起诉,以阻止未能向美国国税局披露这些避税交易的罚款的执行?但实际问题要广泛得多。问题的关键在于,避税行业是否会被允许利用一波又一波的战略性执法前诉讼来阻碍美国国税局打击滥用避税行为的努力。狭义法律问题可以而且应该根据明文的法定文本来确定。申请人寻求永久限制国税局对未披露某些纳税人用来索赔损失的“微型专属保险”交易的处罚。请愿人把这些交易宣传为“避税”。根据《反禁令法》,国会将这些罚款视为“税收”。该法案明确禁止“任何人”“以限制评估或征收任何税款为目的的诉讼”。因此,上诉人的诉讼旨在“限制”国会定义为“税收”的罚款的“评估”。仅此一点就足以解决这个案子了。但是,正如本摘要所示,更广泛的历史背景和实际后果证实了为什么本法院遵循明确的法定文本是重要的。这种情况不是凭空出现的。它是在负责管理和执行国内税收法律的联邦机构与一个由会计师、律师、银行家、保险公司和其他人组成的行业之间长达数十年的斗争的背景下产生的。如果判决原告胜诉,将标志着避税行业取得了巨大的胜利,也标志着政府在揭露和挑战滥用避税行为方面的重大挫折。这可能会使联邦财政部每年损失数十亿美元。上诉人阻挠税收评估的努力正是《反禁令法》试图阻止的那种要求。与其给避税行业提供一个强大的新工具来阻挠大规模的税收评估,最高法院更应该适用成文的法规并予以肯定。Lily Batchelder:参议院财政委员会多数党首席税务顾问(2010-2014)和国家经济委员会副主任(2014-2015)。马克·马祖尔:税务联合委员会工作人员经济学家(1989-1993);美国国税局收入研究、分析和统计主任(2001-2009);财政部负责税务分析的副助理部长(2009-2012);2012-2017年担任财政部税收政策助理部长。艾琳·奥康纳:美国助理司法部长,负责司法部税务部门(2001-2007)。莱斯利·塞缪尔斯:负责税收政策的财政部助理部长(1993-1996)。Stephen Shay,美国财政部国际税务顾问(1986-1987),财政部国际税务事务副助理部长(2009-2011)。George Yin:美国税务联合委员会幕僚长(2003-2005)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service
This is a case about tax shelters. It presents a narrow legal question: May people and companies that promote abusive tax shelters sue to block enforcement of monetary penalties for failing to disclose those tax avoidance transactions to the IRS? But the practical question is far broader. At stake is whether the tax-shelter industry will be permitted to use waves of strategic pre-enforcement lawsuits to hobble the IRS’s efforts to combat abusive tax shelters. The narrow legal question can and should be decided based on the plain statutory text. Petitioner seeks to permanently restrain the IRS from imposing penalties for failure to disclose certain “micro-captive insurance” transactions that taxpayers use to claim losses. Petitioner has advertised these transactions as “tax shelters.” Congress has deemed these penalties to be “taxes” for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act. And that Act expressly bars any “suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax” by “any person.” Petitioner’s suit therefore seeks to “restrain” the “assessment” of a penalty that Congress has defined as a “tax.” That alone is enough to resolve this case. But, as this brief shows, broader historical context and practical consequences confirm why it is important for this Court to follow the plain statutory text. This case does not arise in a vacuum. It arises against the backdrop of a decades-long struggle between the federal agency charged with responsibility for administering and enforcing the internal revenue laws and an industry consisting of accountants, lawyers, bankers, insurance companies, and others working in concert to defeat those laws. A ruling for petitioner would mark a resounding win for the tax-shelter industry and a significant setback for the government in its ongoing effort to reveal and challenge abusive tax shelters. It could cost the federal treasury billions of dollars annually. Petitioner’s effort to frustrate tax assessment is exactly the kind of demand that the Anti-Injunction Act seeks to prevent. Rather than hand the tax-shelter industry a powerful new tool to thwart the assessment of taxes on a massive scale, this Court should apply the statute as written and affirm. AMICI: Lily Batchelder: Majority Chief Tax Counsel, Senate Committee on Finance (2010–2014) and Deputy Director, National Economic Council (2014–2015). Mark Mazur: Staff Economist, Joint Committee on Taxation (1989–1993); Director of Research, Analysis, and Statistics of Income, IRS (2001–2009); Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Analysis (2009–2012); and Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (2012–2017). Eileen J. O’Connor: Assistant Attorney General of the United States, responsible for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice (2001–2007). Leslie Samuels: Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Tax Policy (1993–1996). Stephen Shay: International Tax Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury (1986–1987) and Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for International Tax Affairs (2009–2011). George Yin: Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation (2003–2005).
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Misdirected Recipients of Tax Reform: Section 199A, its True Beneficiaries, and Application to Low- and Middle- Income Residents Consistent Taxation in a Cashless Society Is It Time to Eliminate Federal Corporate Income Taxes? Brief of Amici Curiae Former Government Officials in Support of Respondents, CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service Allocating COVID-19 State Aid Equitably – The Case of Denmark
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1