Last month the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Home Concrete v. U.S. which settled whether an overstatement of basis can create an understatement of income so as to trigger a 6 year statute of limitations for assessment. But beyond the resolution of this technical, albeit important, issue the court in its 5-4 decision following its holding in Colony has re-opened the discussion of the degree of deference courts must give to regulations and other administrative rulings.

This webinar will generally consider this issue and Home Concrete’s impact on when, and if, courts must always defer to federal agency regulations interpreting a statute.

Topics covered will include:

• Review of Supreme Court’s decisions in Chevron, Brand X and Mayo creating standards for judicial deference to regulations.
• Analysis of prior decisions interpreting the statute of limitations in §6501(e) leading to the grant of certiorari in Home Concrete.
• Analysis of the Justice Bryer’s majority decision, Justice Scalia’s concurrence and the dissenting opinion by Justice Kennedy.
• Ability of IRS to issue regulations supporting positions currently in litigation.
• Role of stare decisis in determining if a court must follow a regulation.
• Whether a temporary regulation is effective when it has not undergone review to become final under the Administrative Procedures Act.

Educational Objectives

• Understand whether the Supreme Court will defer to IRS regulations in future cases.
• Evaluate whether a taxpayer should follow a regulation or a court case when the two conflict.
• Determine if a temporary regulation carries the full force and effect of law when it has not undergone review under the Administrative Procedure Act.
• Consider the role of stare decisis when weighing judicial authority that conflicts with administrative rulings.

Professor Donald Williamson, American University and Kim Marie Boylan, White & Case