The Current Status of The Debate
As indicated, Congress appears unwilling to establish a national court of tax appeals. Whether that reflects an unwillingness to provide an exception for creation of a specialized appeals court for tax matters when most other federal laws are interpreted at the circuit court level by generalist judges, a careful weighing of the pros and cons of the relative advantage of the experience of the generalist judges compared to tax specialists, or a suspicion of a “pro-government” or “pro-enforcement” bias on the part of specialized tax judges, the consensus appears to be that the institutional arrangements for tax jurisdiction are unlikely to be changed to accommodate more uniformity in tax law interpretation. Given that sentiment, it is not clear what forces would drive an initiative for the appellate courts to accord greater deference to Tax Court decisions or otherwise achieve greater uniformity in federal court tax decisions. In the meantime, there will continue to be a robust review of Tax Court and other court of original jurisdiction decisions on tax issues and a diversity of arguments and conclusions for the Supreme Court to consider when it grants certiorari to hear appeals and for Congress when it considers amending the federal tax laws.
Read more about this topic: Uniformity And Jurisdiction In U.S. Federal Court Tax Decisions
Famous quotes containing the words current, status and/or debate:
“If the current is right, one can drift to success.”
—Mason Cooley (b. 1927)
“Knowing how beleaguered working mothers truly are—knowing because I am one of them—I am still amazed at how one need only say “I work” to be forgiven all expectation, to be assigned almost a handicapped status that no decent human being would burden further with demands. “I work” has become the universally accepted excuse, invoked as an all-purpose explanation for bowing out, not participating, letting others down, or otherwise behaving inexcusably.”
—Melinda M. Marshall (20th century)
“A great deal of unnecessary worry is indulged in by theatregoers trying to understand what Bernard Shaw means. They are not satisfied to listen to a pleasantly written scene in which three or four clever people say clever things, but they need to purse their lips and scowl a little and debate as to whether Shaw meant the lines to be an attack on monogamy as an institution or a plea for manual training in the public school system.”
—Robert Benchley (1889–1945)