Intervention in the Tax Court and the Appellate Review of Tax Court Procedural Decisions

The Tax Court is an Article I court. It resolves more than 95% of all tax-related litigation—actually nearly 97% of the total federal tax docket in 2012. Despite this substantial role in federal litigation, scholars and courts have generally put aside the issue of what standard is appropriate when a U.S. federal court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural questions. Section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) grants jurisdiction to the courts of appeals to review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury.”Unlike district courts, which must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Tax Court operates under its own separate set of procedural rules—the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tax Court Rules). Congress explicitly authorized the Tax Court to choose its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453. Where there is no applicable Tax Court procedural rule, Tax Court Rule 1(b) provides that the Tax Court “may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand.”Currently, no judicial decision analyzes the appropriate standard for appellate review of a Tax Court’s decision to apply (or not apply) a federal procedural rule where the Tax Court lacks its own applicable procedure. The appropriate standard of appellate review for Tax Court procedural decisions garnered attention when the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) recently sought to intervene in several Tax Court proceedings under FRCP 24(a)(2). The Tax Court Rules lack an intervention procedure and the Tax Court, acting pursuant to its discretion under Rule 1(b), has never granted a third party non-taxpayer’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2).Given the outcome-determinative potential of the standard of review,these recent USVI cases—discussed individually below— provide an important opportunity to determine whether the abuse of discretion or de novo standard should govern appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit became the third federal appellate court to overturn a Tax Court decision denying a motion by the USVI to intervene in a dispute between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a taxpayer. In Huff v. Commissioner,10 the Eleventh Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits in allowing the USVI to intervene in a Tax Court proceeding. However, not all federal appellate courts have ruled this way. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit created a circuit split when it affirmed the Tax Court in denying intervention to the USVI. The Huff decision deepened the current circuit split and complicatedthe matter further. The Eleventh Circuit in Huff—unlike the other three circuits that have addressed this issue—allowed intervention as a matter of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). This approach is novel, as the Tax Court has never allowed a third party non-taxpayer to intervene under this provision—although it has the discretion to do so under Tax Court Rule 1(b). The Huff decision presents two issues worthy of discussion in this Comment. The first is whether de novo review is appropriate when a court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural decisions. Generally, under I.R.C. § 7482, the appeals courts review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent” as district court decisions. Yet, given the Tax Court’s general power to prescribe its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453,16 the Huff court erred in applying the de novo standard of review to the Tax Court’s decision to not apply FRCP 24(a)(2). The second issue the Huff opinion presents—regarding the substance of the case—is whether the USVI has a right to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2). This issue turns on whether a Tax Court proceeding is the proper forum in which to confront the weighty concerns of fair implementation and coordination of two separate but interrelated taxing agencies—the IRS and the USVI’s Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Part I of this Comment briefly summarizes the pertinent facts of Huff. Part II surveys the current circuit split on intervention in Tax Court proceedings. Part III analyzes the proper standard for review of the USVI’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2), as well as the proper standard regarding all appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions—a discussion that is largely absent from both scholarly works and court opinions. This Comment concludes in Part III with a critique of the Huff court’s FRCP 24(a)(2) analysis

Intervention in the Tax Court and the Appellate Review of Tax Court Procedural Decisions

The Tax Court is an Article I court. It resolves more than 95% of all tax-related litigation—actually nearly 97% of the total federal tax docket in 2012. Despite this substantial role in federal litigation, scholars and courts have generally put aside the issue of what standard is appropriate when a U.S. federal court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural questions. Section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) grants jurisdiction to the courts of appeals to review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury.”Unlike district courts, which must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Tax Court operates under its own separate set of procedural rules—the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tax Court Rules). Congress explicitly authorized the Tax Court to choose its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453. Where there is no applicable Tax Court procedural rule, Tax Court Rule 1(b) provides that the Tax Court “may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand.”Currently, no judicial decision analyzes the appropriate standard for appellate review of a Tax Court’s decision to apply (or not apply) a federal procedural rule where the Tax Court lacks its own applicable procedure. The appropriate standard of appellate review for Tax Court procedural decisions garnered attention when the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) recently sought to intervene in several Tax Court proceedings under FRCP 24(a)(2). The Tax Court Rules lack an intervention procedure and the Tax Court, acting pursuant to its discretion under Rule 1(b), has never granted a third party non-taxpayer’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2).Given the outcome-determinative potential of the standard of review,these recent USVI cases—discussed individually below— provide an important opportunity to determine whether the abuse of discretion or de novo standard should govern appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit became the third federal appellate court to overturn a Tax Court decision denying a motion by the USVI to intervene in a dispute between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a taxpayer. In Huff v. Commissioner,10 the Eleventh Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits in allowing the USVI to intervene in a Tax Court proceeding. However, not all federal appellate courts have ruled this way. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit created a circuit split when it affirmed the Tax Court in denying intervention to the USVI. The Huff decision deepened the current circuit split and complicatedthe matter further. The Eleventh Circuit in Huff—unlike the other three circuits that have addressed this issue—allowed intervention as a matter of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). This approach is novel, as the Tax Court has never allowed a third party non-taxpayer to intervene under this provision—although it has the discretion to do so under Tax Court Rule 1(b). The Huff decision presents two issues worthy of discussion in this Comment. The first is whether de novo review is appropriate when a court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural decisions. Generally, under I.R.C. § 7482, the appeals courts review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent” as district court decisions. Yet, given the Tax Court’s general power to prescribe its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453,16 the Huff court erred in applying the de novo standard of review to the Tax Court’s decision to not apply FRCP 24(a)(2). The second issue the Huff opinion presents—regarding the substance of the case—is whether the USVI has a right to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2). This issue turns on whether a Tax Court proceeding is the proper forum in which to confront the weighty concerns of fair implementation and coordination of two separate but interrelated taxing agencies—the IRS and the USVI’s Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Part I of this Comment briefly summarizes the pertinent facts of Huff. Part II surveys the current circuit split on intervention in Tax Court proceedings. Part III analyzes the proper standard for review of the USVI’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2), as well as the proper standard regarding all appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions—a discussion that is largely absent from both scholarly works and court opinions. This Comment concludes in Part III with a critique of the Huff court’s FRCP 24(a)(2) analysis

Intervention in the Tax Court and the Appellate Review of Tax Court Procedural Decisions

The Tax Court is an Article I court. It resolves more than 95% of all tax-related litigation—actually nearly 97% of the total federal tax docket in 2012. Despite this substantial role in federal litigation, scholars and courts have generally put aside the issue of what standard is appropriate when a U.S. federal court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural questions. Section 7482 of the Internal Revenue Code (I.R.C.) grants jurisdiction to the courts of appeals to review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts in civil actions tried without a jury.”Unlike district courts, which must follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the Tax Court operates under its own separate set of procedural rules—the Tax Court Rules of Practice and Procedure (Tax Court Rules). Congress explicitly authorized the Tax Court to choose its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453. Where there is no applicable Tax Court procedural rule, Tax Court Rule 1(b) provides that the Tax Court “may prescribe the procedure, giving particular weight to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to the extent that they are suitably adaptable to govern the matter at hand.”Currently, no judicial decision analyzes the appropriate standard for appellate review of a Tax Court’s decision to apply (or not apply) a federal procedural rule where the Tax Court lacks its own applicable procedure. The appropriate standard of appellate review for Tax Court procedural decisions garnered attention when the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI) recently sought to intervene in several Tax Court proceedings under FRCP 24(a)(2). The Tax Court Rules lack an intervention procedure and the Tax Court, acting pursuant to its discretion under Rule 1(b), has never granted a third party non-taxpayer’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2).Given the outcome-determinative potential of the standard of review,these recent USVI cases—discussed individually below— provide an important opportunity to determine whether the abuse of discretion or de novo standard should govern appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions. In 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit became the third federal appellate court to overturn a Tax Court decision denying a motion by the USVI to intervene in a dispute between the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and a taxpayer. In Huff v. Commissioner,10 the Eleventh Circuit joined the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Third and Eighth Circuits in allowing the USVI to intervene in a Tax Court proceeding. However, not all federal appellate courts have ruled this way. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit created a circuit split when it affirmed the Tax Court in denying intervention to the USVI. The Huff decision deepened the current circuit split and complicatedthe matter further. The Eleventh Circuit in Huff—unlike the other three circuits that have addressed this issue—allowed intervention as a matter of right under FRCP 24(a)(2). This approach is novel, as the Tax Court has never allowed a third party non-taxpayer to intervene under this provision—although it has the discretion to do so under Tax Court Rule 1(b). The Huff decision presents two issues worthy of discussion in this Comment. The first is whether de novo review is appropriate when a court of appeals reviews Tax Court procedural decisions. Generally, under I.R.C. § 7482, the appeals courts review Tax Court decisions “in the same manner and to the same extent” as district court decisions. Yet, given the Tax Court’s general power to prescribe its own procedural rules under I.R.C. § 7453,16 the Huff court erred in applying the de novo standard of review to the Tax Court’s decision to not apply FRCP 24(a)(2). The second issue the Huff opinion presents—regarding the substance of the case—is whether the USVI has a right to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2). This issue turns on whether a Tax Court proceeding is the proper forum in which to confront the weighty concerns of fair implementation and coordination of two separate but interrelated taxing agencies—the IRS and the USVI’s Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR). Part I of this Comment briefly summarizes the pertinent facts of Huff. Part II surveys the current circuit split on intervention in Tax Court proceedings. Part III analyzes the proper standard for review of the USVI’s motion to intervene under FRCP 24(a)(2), as well as the proper standard regarding all appellate review of Tax Court procedural decisions—a discussion that is largely absent from both scholarly works and court opinions. This Comment concludes in Part III with a critique of the Huff court’s FRCP 24(a)(2) analysis

Employment interviewing options for college students who have physical handicaps

College students who have physical handicaps, like most college students, can benefit from student services designed to help them cope with the transitions in their lives. Students who have physical handicaps are concerned about the transition from being a college student to becoming a professional employee. They are anxious about interviewing for their first professional full-time positions. An issue that job applicants who have physical handicaps should resolve before they interview for employment is whether, how, and when to disclose their handicaps to the interviewers (Huvelle, Budoff, & Arnholz, 1984). However, little information is available to assist applicants who have physical handicaps in deciding whether to discuss their handicaps during employment interviews

The Shared Datasets Initiative: On the feasibility and desirability of establishing common digital datasets for use in an ILS program

This paper begins with a concept: establishing a shared datasets initiative at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill's School of Information and Library Science (SILS). The initiative under proposal would attempt to introduce a collection of digital datasets, as a shared learning object, into courses across the school's curriculum to augment learning on digital data topics. The program would have four primary components: program oversight, infrastructure, resources, and services. This feasibility study was designed to ascertain how and whether a shared datasets initiative should be designed for the school. Interviews and focus groups were conducted with SILS faculty and students; in addition, several common reading program administrators and data experts were interviewed. Based on these data, specific recommendations are made for the implementation of a shared datasets initiative at SILS. These recommendations address decisions to be made about technology infrastructure, dataset selection, and the importance of visible success

Conflicts of interest and boundary setting for growth in faculty-to-faculty mentoring

In higher education, mentoring is often structured as a relationship between a tenured, senior faculty member and an untenured, junior faculty member to ease the mentee\u27s transition to the organization and to the tripartite faculty responsibilities of teaching, research, and service. Conflicts of interest emerge if the mentor, who has been serving as confidant and guide, participates in the promotion and tenure assessment of the mentee. Is any information shared by the mentee during the mentoring considered confidential? Relevant research and mentorship documents will be analyzed to determine if this conflict of interest is acknowledged and if strategies for setting appropriate boundaries have been implemented. The case of university librarianship will be explored; parallels exist in other occupations. The presenter will draw on her 30 years of experience as an academic librarian and her 20 years of mentoring

7-Layer Citation Salad—The Joy of Identifying Distinct Ingredients and Assembling a Glorious Delight: Students as Information and Citation Creators

In the 7-Layer Citation Salad critical-thinking exercise, students become apprentice chefs as they learn to create journal article citations adhering to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. The library instruction chef draws parallels to mise en place (“everything in its place”) and to assembling a structured salad as the apprentices discover the rewards of identifying each citation ingredient from articles and assembling the ingredients in the proper order. The library chef discusses the need to credit other authors for their ideas. The standard recipe may be adapted to any citation style and the number of layers modified

Prevalence of pain and its associated factors among the oldest-olds in different care settings – results of the AgeQualiDe study

Background; The prevalence of pain is very common in the oldest age group. Managing pain successfully is a key topic in primary care, especially within the ageing population. Different care settings might have an impact on the prevalence of pain and everyday life. Methods: Participants from the German longitudinal cohort study on Needs, Health Service Use, Costs and Health-related Quality of Life in a large Sample of Oldest-old Primary Care Patients (85+) (AgeQualiDe) were asked to rate their severity of pain as well as the impairment with daily activities. Besides gender, age, education, BMI and use of analgesics we focused on the current housing situation and on cognitive state. Associations of the dependent measures were tested using four ordinal logistic regression models. Model 1 and 4 consisted of the overall sample, model 2 and 3 were divided according to no cognitive impairment (NCI) and mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results: Results show a decline in pain at very old age but nonetheless a high prevalence among the 85+ year olds. Sixty-three per cent of the participants report mild to severe pain and 69% of the participants mild to extreme impairment due to pain with daily activities. Use of analgesics, depression and living at home with care support are significantly associated with higher and male gender with lower pain ratings. Conclusions: Sufficient pain management among the oldest age group is inevitable. Outpatient care settings are at risk of overlooking pain. Therefore focus should be set on pain management in these settings

Changes in Social Network Size Are Associated With Cognitive Changes in the Oldest-Old

Objectives:Social isolation is increasing in aging societies and several studies have shown a relation with worse cognition in old age. However, less is known about the association in the oldest-old (85+); the group that is at highest risk for both social isolation and dementia. Methods:Analyses were based on follow-up 5 to 9 of the longitudinal German study on aging, cognition, and dementia in primary care patients (AgeCoDe) and the study on needs, health service use, costs, and health-related quality of life in a large sample of oldest-old primary care patients (AgeQualiDe), a multi-center population-based prospective cohort study. Measurements included the Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6), with a score below 12 indicating social isolation, as well as the Mini-Mental Status Examination (MMSE) as an indicator of cognitive function. Results:Dementia-free study participants (n = 942) were M = 86.4 (SD = 3.0) years old at observation onset, 68.2% were women. One third (32.3%) of them were socially isolated. Adjusted linear hybrid mixed effects models revealed significantly lower cognitive function in individuals with smaller social networks (β = 0.5, 95% CI = 0.3-0.7, p < .001). Moreover, changes in an individual's social network size were significantly associated with cognitive changes over time (β = 0.2, 95% CI = 0.1-0.4, p = .003), indicating worse cognitive function with shrinking social networks. Conclusion:Social isolation is highly prevalent among oldest-old individuals, being a risk factor for decreases in cognitive function. Consequently, it is important to maintain a socially active lifestyle into very old age. Likewise, this calls for effective ways to prevent social isolation