Thursday, January 24, 2019
Mike Cox Named VP Taxation for Norfolk Southern (1/24/19)
Michael F. ("Mike") Cox has been named Vice-President Taxation. See Norfolk Southern names Michael F. Cox vice president taxation (Cision Newswire 1/23/19), here. The announcement says only with respect to his service in that Tax Division that he was a trial attorney there.
Tuesday, January 8, 2019
Clare E. Connors Nominated as Attorney General for Hawaii (1/8/19)
Clare E. Connors has been appointed to be the Attorney General of the State of Hawaii. She awaits Senate confirmation. See Former assistant U.S. attorney picked to be Hawaii's new attorney general (Khon2 1/3/19), here. Her Wikipedia page is here.
She had previously been nominated by President Obama named to a district court judge slot, but the nomination expired at the end of Obama's term. See Wikipedia page above; and Clare E. Connors Nominated for Federal District Court Slot (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 9/9/15), here.
She had previously been nominated by President Obama named to a district court judge slot, but the nomination expired at the end of Obama's term. See Wikipedia page above; and Clare E. Connors Nominated for Federal District Court Slot (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 9/9/15), here.
Mike Desmond Nomination as Chief Counsel Stymied (1/9/18)
I picked this up from Checkpoint Newstand for 1/9/19:
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) has remained steadfast in blocking Senate floor action on the nomination of Michael Desmond to serve as IRS chief counsel. As described on the agency's website, the chief counsel "serves as the chief legal advisor to the IRS Commissioner on all matters pertaining to the interpretation, administration, and enforcement of the Internal Revenue Code, as well as all other legal matters". There was some hope that Desmond's nomination would come before the full Senate before the end of December but that was not the case. Menendez's office confirmed to the media that he had delayed floor action on the nomination. On Jan. 3, the Senate Finance Committee returned Desmond's nomination, along with a number of other nominations, to President Trump under the provisions of Senate Rule XXXI, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate. According to the Congressional Research Service, "nominations that are pending when the Senate adjourns sine die or recesses for more than 30 days are returned to the President unless the Senate, by unanimous consent, waives the rule requiring their return. If a nomination is returned, and the President still desires Senate consideration, he must submit a new nomination to the Senate". Menendez has described his opposition to the nomination of Desmond as well as his earlier opposition to the confirmation of current IRS Commissioner Charles Rettig as a protest against the agency's proposed regs, pursuant to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA; P.L. 115-97, 12/22/2017), that would prevent states from declaring certain state and local tax payments as charitable contributions. For the return of the nomination to the President, see here.
Monday, January 7, 2019
Sex and Tax (Including the Tax Division) in the Movies (1/7/18; 1/19/19)
Many readers will already know that there is a new movie, On the Basis of Sex (Wikipedia page here), which revolves around a tax case involving a constitutional issue on gender discrimination in the tax law in a case pitting Ruth Bader Ginsburg (yes, the notorious one, often referred to as RBG) and her husband Marty Ginsburg against the Tax Division. (Sorry to disappoint, but it is not that kind of sex, although the confluence of sex and tax is usually an oxymoron but surely an attention grabber.) RBG needs no introduction and, I suspect, neither does Marty who was, in my mind, the smartest tax lawyer around. I have several Marty stories, but none related to the Tax Division Alumni.
The tax case was Moritz v. Commissioner, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972), here, cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906 (1973). According to the movie portrayal, the principal actors from DOJ were: Jim Bozarth, (Appellate Section line attorney now in private practice, here), Ernest J. Brown (Appellate Section reviewer and former tax professor at Harvard Law School, now deceased), and Erwin Griswold (Solicitor General and former tax professor and Dean at Harvard Law School, now deceased). The movie does not include the SG tax assistant, Richard Stone, who would likely have been a principal player in the real drama.
Those who worked in the Appellate Section (like me, there at the time) may see some liberties taken in the movie (like the absence of the SG tax assistant who would have pulled the laboring oar in the SG's office, although my experience was that SG Griswold did take special interest in tax cases and would have done so in authorizing the petition for cert). Whether the SG was materially involved prior to the Tenth Circuit decision seems unlikely.
I do have a friend, Peter Reilly, a tax blogger at Forbes, here, who has tried to gather information about the portrayals in the movie. He has discussed the movie with me; to date those discussions with Peter were before I saw the movie. I could then just talk about the working of the Appellate Section and the players involved, including the missing SG tax assistant (Richard Stone) and others. Most significantly, Peter talked with Jim Bozarth. As of this writing, Peter has written three blog entries on his sleuthing about the movie, including comments from the screenwriter, Daniel Stiepleman. I list those current blog entries (updated) below, but urge readers interested in the topic to check back with Peter's blog because there will be later blog entries. These are presented in chronological order.
My only complaint is that they presented the Tenth Circuit argument almost as if it were a jury trial. My experience with DOJ Tax Appellate is that the attorneys avoided the drama at oral argument (it is a tax case, after all). The movie had, for example, Bozarth turning from the judges to look at the taxpayer (Moritiz) and the opposing lawyers (the Ginsburgs), and even casting an aspersion that the Ginsburgs promoted the case for reasons other than the client's interest. I would be stunned if Bozarth did that (he is too class a lawyer for that) and am disappointed that the makers of the movie felt it appropriate to put that fictional (in my view) event in the movie.
I would appreciate comments from DOJ Tax Alumni. Please make them below or send them to me at jack@tjtaxlaw.com. Any information, anecdotes, etc., sent to me will not be published or shared with anyone else (including Peter Reilly without express permission). One thing I am particularly interested in is who the SG tax assistant was (I may know that later today when a document package is delivered to Peter Reilly) and whether, if the SG tax assistant is still alive, how he might be contacted.
Also, those having difficulty posting comments (some do), please email the comments to me with a request to post the comment and I will take care of posting them.
The tax case was Moritz v. Commissioner, 469 F.2d 466 (10th Cir. 1972), here, cert. denied, 412 U.S. 906 (1973). According to the movie portrayal, the principal actors from DOJ were: Jim Bozarth, (Appellate Section line attorney now in private practice, here), Ernest J. Brown (Appellate Section reviewer and former tax professor at Harvard Law School, now deceased), and Erwin Griswold (Solicitor General and former tax professor and Dean at Harvard Law School, now deceased). The movie does not include the SG tax assistant, Richard Stone, who would likely have been a principal player in the real drama.
Those who worked in the Appellate Section (like me, there at the time) may see some liberties taken in the movie (like the absence of the SG tax assistant who would have pulled the laboring oar in the SG's office, although my experience was that SG Griswold did take special interest in tax cases and would have done so in authorizing the petition for cert). Whether the SG was materially involved prior to the Tenth Circuit decision seems unlikely.
I do have a friend, Peter Reilly, a tax blogger at Forbes, here, who has tried to gather information about the portrayals in the movie. He has discussed the movie with me; to date those discussions with Peter were before I saw the movie. I could then just talk about the working of the Appellate Section and the players involved, including the missing SG tax assistant (Richard Stone) and others. Most significantly, Peter talked with Jim Bozarth. As of this writing, Peter has written three blog entries on his sleuthing about the movie, including comments from the screenwriter, Daniel Stiepleman. I list those current blog entries (updated) below, but urge readers interested in the topic to check back with Peter's blog because there will be later blog entries. These are presented in chronological order.
- "On The Basis Of Sex" - What To Read Before You Watch (Forbes Peter Reilly 12/28/18), here.
- On The Basis Of Sex: How A Tax Case Became A Victory For Gender Equity (Forbes Peter Reilly 12/31/18), here.
- On The Basis Of Sex: Portrayal Of Opposing Attorney Has No Basis In Reality (Forbes Peter Reilly 1/4/19), here.
- On The Basis Of Sex - Watch The Other Lawyers (Forbes Peter Reilly 1/13/19), here. (This is the most focused presentation on the DOJ Tax Appellate lawyers (Brown and Bozarth) and the Solicitor General.
My wife and I saw the movie at the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. The movie is a sweet love story, about a tax issue. We both liked the movie. I thought it was lovely. Just about a nice, married couple, and taxation. Who could ask for anything more?
My only complaint is that they presented the Tenth Circuit argument almost as if it were a jury trial. My experience with DOJ Tax Appellate is that the attorneys avoided the drama at oral argument (it is a tax case, after all). The movie had, for example, Bozarth turning from the judges to look at the taxpayer (Moritiz) and the opposing lawyers (the Ginsburgs), and even casting an aspersion that the Ginsburgs promoted the case for reasons other than the client's interest. I would be stunned if Bozarth did that (he is too class a lawyer for that) and am disappointed that the makers of the movie felt it appropriate to put that fictional (in my view) event in the movie.
I would appreciate comments from DOJ Tax Alumni. Please make them below or send them to me at jack@tjtaxlaw.com. Any information, anecdotes, etc., sent to me will not be published or shared with anyone else (including Peter Reilly without express permission). One thing I am particularly interested in is who the SG tax assistant was (I may know that later today when a document package is delivered to Peter Reilly) and whether, if the SG tax assistant is still alive, how he might be contacted.
Also, those having difficulty posting comments (some do), please email the comments to me with a request to post the comment and I will take care of posting them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)