In 2011, the Supreme Court in Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research v. United States indicated that it was “not inclined to carve out an approach to administrative review good for tax law only.” Since then, both tax jurisprudence and, consequently, tax administration have been on a gradual march away from a longstanding posture of tax exceptionalism and toward greater compliance with administrative law requirements, doctrines, and norms. Taxpayers have won some high-profile cases on the basis of courts applying general administrative law precedents — e.g., Home Concrete, Cohen, Chamber of Commerce, and Good Fortune Shipping. But even where taxpayers have lost, as in the Altera decision that I discussed in an earlier post (as well as here when the taxpayer won in the Tax Court), courts have not questioned whether administrative law cases and requirements apply in the tax context.
For a recent speech for @ABATaxSection, I was asked to identify non-tax Supreme Court cases from the last couple of terms and discuss their potential implications for tax administration. In a series of forthcoming posts, I will talk about the potential tax consequences of Kisor v. Wilkie, Gundy v. United States, Lucia v. SEC, and United States v. Gamble. In a final post, I will offer a few thoughts about these cases taken collectively.
Links to posts in this series:
Part 1: Introduction and Index
Part 2: Tax and Kisor v. Wilkie
Part 3: Tax and Gundy v. United States
Part 4: Tax and Lucia v. SEC
Part 5: Tax and United States v. Gamble
Part 6: Synthesis and Prediction
