A Ground Water Quality Summary for Alaska: a Termination Report

The expanding economic activity throughout the State of Alaska has created an urgent demand for water resource data. Ground water quality information is of particular interest since this is the most used source for domestic and industrial supplies. Many agencies and individuals have accumulated large quantities of data but their value has been marginal due to a lack of distribution to potential users. It was the original intent of the work reported herein to gather, collate, and publish all ground water quality data available in the files of university, state, and federal laboratories. Soon after the inception of the project the major contributor, the U.S. Geological Survey, found it was administratively impossible to contribute either the monies or the data necessary to accomplish the ultimate goals of the project -- An Atlas on Alaskan Ground Water Qualities. At the time the above decision was made the Institute felt too much information was on hand to allow it to lay fallow. Therefore, this report was prepared, In a more limited scope than originally planned, to fill the need for a readily available source of information.The work upon which this report is based was supported by funds provided by the U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Water Resources Research, Project Number A-024-ALAS and Agreement Number 14-01-0001-1070

Easterday and the Erosion of the Financial Inability Defense

Several tax crimes in the code involve failure to pay known or assessed tax liabilities. For generations, there has been controversy over whether a taxpayer’s lack of funds from which to make payment should preclude conviction for those crimes. The potency of the financial inability defense1 has waned over the years. The recent decision of a divided Ninth Circuit panel in Easterday continues that trend, but the defense should still have life in some situations and some courts. Part I of this report describes the tax crimes to which a financial inability defense may be relevant. Part II discusses Easterday. Part III traces the evolution of the defense and the willfulness element. Part IV analyzes the multiple views that have emanated from the courts on the existence and contours of the financial inability defense. Finally, Part V evaluates whether the defense still has or should have any vitality. Prosecutors might attempt to read Easterday and other cases as unequivocally rejecting the defense, regardless of context. Part V refutes that absolutist position. Instead, it argues that context – especially the reason for a defendant\u27s lack of funds – should matter a great deal. Easterday and other cases may have narrowed the range of acceptable reasons for financial inability, but they should not be viewed as having eliminated them. Although its sphere of activity has been circumscribed, the defense still has life

Swallows as It Might Have Been: Regulations Revising Case Law

This is the second of two reports on the Swallozvs Holding decision. 1 In that case, the Tax Court, over three dissenting opinions, invalidated a timing rule contained in a Treasury regulation under IRC section 882. That timing rule provided that some foreign corporations could not claim otherwise available deductions if their returns for the tax year were filed outside an 18-month grace period. The majority and the dissenters clashed over which line of authority – Chevron 2 or the pre-Chevron tax-specific line of decisions typified by National Muffier3 – provides the governing standard for evaluating the validity of general authority tax regulations, and what result should be reached in the case under the governing standard

Tax Court Invalidates New Section 6501(e) Regulations

The title of an article of mine in the Fall 2009 issue of the NewsQuarterly asked “What’s Next in the Section 6501(e) Overstated Basis Controversy?” The Tax Court answered that question on May 6, 2010, in its decision Intermountain Insurance Service of Vail, LLC v. Commissioner, 134 T.C. No. 11. In that decision, the court invalidated two temporary regulations that had been issued on September 24, 2009: sections 301.6229(c)(2)-IT and 301.6501(e)-IT

The Phoenix and the Perils of the Second Best: Why Heightened Appellate Deference to Tax Court Decisions is Undesirable

In our judicial structure, both courts of general jurisdiction and specialized courts are empowered to adjudicate federal income tax controversies. A proper relationship among those courts has proved difficult to forge and maintain. Absent an enduring intellectual and political consensus, institutional arrangements have been subject to recurring question and challenge. This Article has four parts. Part I is foundational. It describes the current structure for the litigation of federal tax controversies. Part II discusses the enduring attractiveness to many of enlarging the role of specialist courts in the federal tax adjudication system. It sketches proposals for a national court of tax appeals and proposals for increased deference to the Tax Court. Part II concludes that deference proposals are likely to be tenacious and recurring. Part III explains why additional deference to Tax Court decisions is a “second best” approach compared to creation of a national court of tax appeals. It also explores the disadvantages of this second best approach. In particular, Part III argues that increased deference, superimposed on the current fragmented tax litigation system, would (1) chill resort to the Tax Court with respect to cases of first impression, thus minimizing the benefits of the Tax Court\u27s expertise in tax matters; (2) increase rewards for forum shopping, allowing taxpayers to game the system to the consistent disadvantage of the government; (3) create intracircuit non-uniformity; and (4) exacerbate, not reduce, intercircuit non-uniformity by adding procedural non-uniformity on top of substantive non-uniformity. Part IV considers the effect of the Supreme Court\u27s decision in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. on the question of appellate deference to the Tax Court. It concludes that Chevron is not likely to be significant in this regard and, in any event, militates against, not for, deference to Tax Court decisions

Major Changes to Taxation of Tort Damages

Tax law touches virtually all economic and social transactions. Accordingly, no attorney – regardless of his or her specialty – can afford to be unaware of tax effects. Moreover, tax law changes frequently, and obsolete knowledge is a synonym for malpractice. This article discusses federal income taxation of damages recovered in tort actions. There were important changes in the area in 1996. More recently, a significant statutory change was made in October 2004, and the Supreme Court decided a key case in January 2005

Cohen: Hard Case Makes (Semi) Bad Law

The first Justice Harlan famously cautioned that hard cases can lead to bad law. United States v. Clark, 96 U.S. 37, 49 (1878) (dissenting opinion). This aphorism captures the reality that, when confronted with litigating equities strongly favoring one party, judges tend to massage doctrine to support judgment for that party

Employer Tax Liability for Employees\u27 Tips: Fior D\u27Italia

Given Nevada\u27s heavy concentration of businesses in which employees are tipped, lawyers here may be more than usually interested in a recent decision by the United States Supreme Court. On June 17, 2002, the Court decided United States v. Fior D\u27ltalia, Inc. By 6 to 3, the Court held that the IRS may use an “aggregate estimation” method to determine employers’ liability for Social Security (FICA) taxes imposed on their employees’ tip income. The decision is an important development in a controversy of long duration, but it is not the end of that controversy. This article provides background, describes the Court\u27s decision, and discusses the administrative and legislative aftermath