Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:05 a.m. No.21114294   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4295 >>4307 >>4311 >>4325 >>4327 >>4339 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>0668

https://kiplinger.com/taxes/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron

 

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron: What It Means for the IRS

A landmark decision from SCOTUS

 

fundamentally alters the administrative law landscape and impacts federal agencies, including the IRS.

 

In a 114-page decision issued June 28, the United States Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine, fundamentally altering the landscape of administrative law.

 

The 6-3 ruling came in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and a related case, Relentless Inc. v. Department of Commerce. As Kiplinger reported, Loper Bright involved a National Marine Fisheries Service regulation requiring commercial fisheries to pay about $700 daily for an industry monitoring program. However, the effects of today's ruling extend far beyond the fishing industry.

 

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority, stating, “Chevron defies the command” of the Administrative Procedure Act. “Perhaps most fundamentally, Chevron’s presumption [that courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws] is misguided because agencies have no special competence in resolving statutory ambiguities. Courts do."

cont:

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:05 a.m. No.21114295   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4298 >>4307 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114294 cont

Justices Thomas and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Justice Elena Kagan dissented joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson (though Jackson recused from Loper Bright).

 

In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote, “In one fell swoop, the majority today gives itself exclusive power over every open issue — no matter how expertise-driven or policy-laden — involving the meaning of regulatory law.”

 

The implications of this decision are far-reaching, to many federal agencies, including the IRS. Here’s more of what you should know.

ont:

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:06 a.m. No.21114298   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4300 >>4307 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114295 cont

Chevron deference overturned

The Chevron doctrine, derived from a 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, has been a key principle in administrative law for nearly four decades.

 

Chevron established that courts should defer to federal agencies' interpretations of ambiguous laws as long as those interpretations were reasonable.

This allowed agencies to use their expertise to fill gaps and create necessary rules when Congress passed laws.

However, the Supreme Court's decision today in the fisheries cases overturns this long-standing doctrine. (Though Justice Roberts did note that the Court’s opinion today doesn’t call into question prior cases that relied on the Chevron framework.)

 

In previous oral arguments before the court, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar warned that overruling Chevron would severely disrupt the legal system, a concern shared by many legal experts.

 

Justice Kagan, who described the majority’s decision as part of an effort to roll back federal agency authority, echoed that in her dissenting opinion, saying overruling Chevron “is likely to produce large-scale disruption.”

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:06 a.m. No.21114300   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4301 >>4307 >>4311 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114298 cont

Chevron deference and the IRS?

The Court’s decision marks a significant shift in the balance of power between the judiciary and federal agencies. As a result, it will profoundly impact federal agencies including the IRS and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which often interpret complex tax laws.

 

The loss of Chevron deference could lead to a surge in challenges to IRS authority. When Congress drafts intricate tax legislation, particularly under tight deadlines or political pressure, the IRS has traditionally provided clarity and enforced compliance through its interpretations of legislation. (Authority for that was partly grounded in the Chevron doctrine.) Now, that approach might no longer be reliable.

 

Without the Chevron deference, courts might not defer as easily to the IRS’s expertise, potentially leading to more legal challenges.

It could also lead to a longer, more intricate process for issuing new tax rules and guidance.

That could create a sense of uncertainty for taxpayers and complicate IRS tax compliance and enforcement.

Some opponents of the Chevron doctrine have argued that this decision will rein in federal bureaucracy and reduce overregulation. In some circles, the ruling will be seen as a move towards greater accountability and control over the federal regulatory process by requiring a stricter judicial review of agency interpretations.

 

The Supreme Court’s decision raises broader questions. When statutes are vague, should federal agencies have the authority to fill in the gaps with rules not explicitly mentioned in the law? And if they do, what standard should courts use to evaluate these rules?

 

In dissent, Justice Kagan wrote the following. “Congress knows that it does not — in fact cannot — write perfectly complete regulatory statutes. It knows that those statutes will inevitably contain ambiguities that some other actor will have to resolve and gaps that some other actor will have to fill. And it would usually prefer that actors to be the responsible agency, not a court.”

 

However, Justice Neil Gorsuch in his concurring opinion disagreed stating, “Today, the Court places a tombstone on Chevron no one can miss. In doing so, the Court returns judges to interpretive rules that have guided federal courts since the Nation’s founding.”

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:07 a.m. No.21114301   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4307 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114300 cont

Chevron Supreme Court decision: Bottom line

As the implications of this ruling become clearer, it will be important to watch how it affects federal agencies and their regulatory practices. Loper Bright could prompt a reevaluation of how agencies, like the IRS, exercise authority and interpret legislative directives from Congress. Additionally, Congress may have to provide more explicit legislative directives, and courts might play a more active role in interpreting statutes.

 

Those and other potential changes could impact how tax laws and related regulations affect you and your tax liabilities. Stay tuned.

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:19 a.m. No.21114325   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4327 >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114294

Fortune https://finance.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-overturning-chevron-decision-184117447.html

 

Supreme Court overturning ‘Chevron’ decision could change banking regulation forever

Fri, Jun 28, 2024,

 

The Supreme Court today overruled a decades-old decision that let judges defer to a regulator's interpretation of complex statutes, so long as the court deemed the interpretation reasonable.

 

The decision in Loper Bright Enterprises et al v. Raimondo, Secretary of Commerce came by a vote of 6-3. It is not retroactive.

 

Justices wrote in the decision, referring to the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies handle regulations, that it "requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in deciding whether an agency has acted within its statutory authority, and courts may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous; Chevron is overruled."

A spokesperson for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an independent U.S. agency responsible for consumer protection, tells Fortune they are reviewing the decision.

 

While the decision whether to overturn the 1984 case Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council will take years to fully evaluate, the banking sector is certainly to be among the hardest hit, with agencies including the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau all likely scrambling to see how it will impact them.

 

A statement from Lindsey Johnson, CEO of the Consumer Bankers Association, an advocate of lighter regulation, jumped at the chance to blame regulatory overreach for the decision, adding that what it characterized as a “historic decision” will take “years to unfold across not just the financial regulatory landscape.”

 

”We would not be at this point today if government agencies were more prudent and consistent about staying within their statutory authorities, grounding their rule makings in empirical facts, and heeding appropriate procedural safeguards," Johnson said in a statement. "Instead, too frequently, our regulators appear to be chasing headlines and short-term political wins.”

 

Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association, released a statement saying his advocacy group for small-, medium- and large-size banks was still reviewing the full implications of of the decision, but he took a similar stance to the CBA's.

 

"The ruling sends a crystal-clear message to federal agencies that their powers are not unlimited," he wrote. "This is an important win for accountability and predictability at a time when agencies are unleashing a tsunami of regulation—in many cases clearly exceeding their statutory authority while making it harder for banks to serve their customers. We will continue to fight to ensure that bank regulators follow the law every time they exercise their powers."

 

The CBA statement further says it expects that agency actions that “lack a clear delegation of authority from Congress”

will be increasingly easy to defeat in legal battles

as a result of today's decision.

 

In February 2020 New Jersey–based Loper Bright Enterprises filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia alleging that an ambiguously worded act providing management for some U.S. fisheries does not give the National Marine Fisheries Service the right to require onboard monitoring of its vessels. The case ended up going before the Supreme Court this January.

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:20 a.m. No.21114327   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>4701 >>0668

>>21114294

>>21114325

>Rob Nichols, president and CEO of the American Bankers Association, released a statement saying his advocacy group for small-, medium- and large-size banks was still reviewing the full implications of of the decision, but he took a similar stance to the CBA's.

 

>"The ruling sends a crystal-clear message to federal agencies that their powers are not unlimited," he wrote. "This is an important win for accountability and predictability at a time when agencies are unleashing a tsunami of regulation—in many cases clearly exceeding their statutory authority while making it harder for banks to serve their customers. We will continue to fight to ensure that bank regulators follow the law every time they exercise their powers."

 

>The CBA statement further says it expects that agency actions that “lack a clear delegation of authority from Congress”

 

>will be increasingly easy to defeat in legal battles

 

>as a result of today's decision.

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:28 a.m. No.21114339   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4341 >>4607 >>4658 >>4698 >>0668

>>21114294

The Supreme Court weakens federal regulators, overturning the decades-old Chevron decision along with

 

making it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants and former President Donald Trump with obstruction, a charge used in hundreds of prosecutions.

 

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-2cdba47baa5cea8177d651de751760a6

 

Supreme Court makes it harder to charge Capitol riot defendants with obstruction, charge Trump faces

 

June 28, 2024

Share

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Friday limited a federal obstruction law that has been used to charge hundreds of Capitol riot defendants as well as former President Donald Trump.

 

The justices ruled 6-3 that the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

 

The overwhelming majority of the approximately 1,000 people who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to Capitol riot-related federal crimes were not charged with obstruction and will not be affected by the outcome.

 

Still, the decision is likely to be used as fodder for claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the Justice Department has treated the Capitol riot defendants unfairly.

It’s unclear how the court’s decision will affect the case against Trump in Washington, which includes charges other than obstruction. Special counsel Jack Smith has said the charges faced by the former president would not be affected.

Trump’s case is on hold while the Supreme Court considers a separate case in which Trump is claiming immunity from prosecution. A decision is expected on Monday.

 

Under the ruling issued Friday, dozens of defendants could seek new sentences, ask to withdraw guilty pleas, or have charges dropped. Most defendants convicted of obstruction were also convicted of another felony so their sentence may not be significantly impacted - if at all.

 

The high court returned the case of former Pennsylvania police officer Joseph Fischer to a lower court to determine if Fischer could be charged with obstruction. Fischer has been indicted for his role in disrupting Congress’ certification of Democrat Joe Biden’s 2020 presidential election victory over Trump.

Fischer is among about 350 people who have been charged with obstruction. Some pleaded guilty to — or were convicted of — lesser charges.

 

Republicans, who have cast the Jan. 6 defendants as victims of political persecution, are certain to seize on the ruling to argue the rioters have been unfairly prosecuted by the Justice Department. Trump has embraced Jan. 6 defendants on the campaign trial, and floated pardons for the rioters if he wins in November.

 

cont

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:29 a.m. No.21114341   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>4607 >>4658 >>4668 >>4694 >>4698 >>0668

>>21114339 cont

Trump, speaking at a rally in Chesapeake, Virginia, described the decision as a “great thing.”

 

“Free the J6 hostages now,” he said. “They should free them now for what they’ve gone through. They’ve been waiting for this decision for a long time. They’ve been waiting for a long time. And that was a great answer. That is a great thing for people that have been so horribly treated. ”

 

It’s also likely to slow down cases in a court already clogged with Jan. 6 defendants as judges are forced to grapple with how to apply the ruling.

 

“It’s going to be a big mess,” said Randall Eliason, a professor at George Washington University Law School and former federal prosecutor in Washington.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court’s opinion, joined by conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas, and by liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, a former federal public defender who also wrote a separate opinion.

 

Reading the obstruction statute broadly “would also criminalize a broad swath of prosaic conduct, exposing activists and lobbyists to decades in prison,” Roberts wrote.

 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

 

Barrett, one of three justices appointed by Trump, wrote that the law clearly encompasses the events of Jan. 6. “The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours,” she wrote.

 

She said her colleagues in the majority did “textual backflips to find some way — any way — to narrow the reach” of the obstruction law.

 

Roberts, Jackson and Barrett made strikingly different word choices in their opinions. While Roberts described the attack as a “breach of the Capitol,” Barrett described the events as a riot and the participants as rioters. Jackson wrote that “an angry mob stormed the United States Capitol.”

Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was disappointed with the decision, which he said “limits an important federal statute.” Still, Garland said the cases against the “vast majority” of people charged in the attack won’t be affected.

 

“January 6 was an unprecedented attack on the cornerstone of our system of government — the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next,” he said. “We will continue to use all available tools to hold accountable those criminally responsible for the January 6 attack on our democracy.”

 

Roughly 170 Capitol insurrection defendants have been convicted of obstructing or conspiring to obstruct the Jan. 6 joint session of Congress, including the leaders of two far-right extremist groups, the Proud Boys and the Oath Keepers. A number of defendants have had their sentencings delayed until after the justices rule on the matter.

Some rioters have even won early release from prison while the appeal was pending over concerns that they might end up serving longer than they should have if the Supreme Court ruled against the Justice Department. They include Kevin Seefried, a Delaware man who threatened a Black police officer with a pole attached to a Confederate battle flag as he stormed the Capitol. Seefried was sentenced last year to three years behind bars, but a judge recently ordered that he be released one year into his prison term while awaiting the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Seventeen of the 18 trial judges who have weighed in have allowed the charge to stand. Among them, U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that “statutes often reach beyond the principal evil that animated them.”

 

But U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, another Trump appointee, dismissed the charge against Fischer and two other defendants, writing that prosecutors went too far. A divided panel of the federal appeals court in Washington reinstated the charge before the Supreme Court agreed to take up the case.

 

Alito and Thomas rejected calls that they step aside from the Jan. 6 case because of questions raised about their impartiality.

 

The U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, which has handled Jan. 6 prosecutions, said no one who has been convicted of or charged with obstruction will be completely cleared because of the ruling. Every defendant also has other felony or misdemeanor charges, or both, prosecutors said.

 

For around 50 people who were convicted, obstruction was the only felony count, prosecutors said. Of those, roughly two dozen who still are serving their sentence are most likely to be affected by the ruling.

 

More than 1,400 people have been charged with Capitol riot-related federal crimes.

Anonymous ID: cb51da June 30, 2024, 3:50 a.m. No.21114381   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>21114377

 

@user-dc3ek1pn1n

13 hours ago

Moral turpitude. If a person is teaching children, they should have better sense than to go online drunk and make sexual comments.