close X
07/3/2018

Cause of Action Institute Representing TABOR Foundation in Suit Challenging Colorado Hospital Provider Tax

Washington, DC – July 3, 2018 – Cause of Action Institute today announced that it is taking on the representation of the TABOR Foundation in its ongoing lawsuit TABOR Foundation, et al. v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing, et al.  The case argues that the state has violated Colorado’s Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (“TABOR”) by using a hospital provider tax to artificially increase costs and then collect higher reimbursements from the federal government under Medicaid.

“TABOR requires that the state get consent from the people before raising taxes.  But for the past eight years the state of Colorado has been taxing hospitals by hundreds of millions of dollars to fleece the federal government without the required TABOR vote.  The TABOR Foundation is rightly pushing back on the sweetheart deal that leaves taxpayers stuck with the bill,” said James Valvo, Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.

“The people of Colorado are confronted with actions taken by the legislature and the governor to damage their constitution.  The Hospital Provider program was built on a lie, then made much worse.   The people should get a final vote on tax increases and new government debt, but that was taken from them in a dishonest power grab by elected officials,” said Penn R. Pfiffner, Chairman of the TABOR Foundation.  “The TABOR Foundation is grateful that Cause of Action Institute has stepped in to allow this lawsuit to go forward.  Its participation supports all the citizens of Colorado to reverse the corrupt government actions and to allow the people once again to control their state government.”

TABOR Foundation v. Colorado Department of Health Care Policy & Financing is an ongoing Colorado state court lawsuit that began in 2015 challenging a hospital provider tax levied by the state and used to increase Medicaid reimbursements. Under TABOR, new taxes cannot be collected without a vote of the people. The TABOR Foundation’s challenge argues that the hospital provider charge, that is currently reimbursed under Medicaid from the federal government, is in fact a tax and violates the TABOR amendment in Colorado’s state constitution because the state did not hold the required vote.

The case also argues Senate Bill 17-267, which converted the hospital provider tax from the Department to a newly created enterprise, violated the Colorado constitution’s single-subject requirement and failed to comply with the state excess revenue cap, which limits the amount of revenue the state can keep and spend.

Cause of Action Institute will be requesting summary judgment from the Colorado state district court on behalf of the Plaintiffs.

For more information, please contact Mary Beth Gombita, mbgcomms@gmail.com.

Media, Press Release Learn More
04/30/2018

2016-2018 FOIA Advisory Committee Issues Final Report

The 2016-2018 iteration of the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, of which I was a member, has just issued its final report and recommendations.  The report takes the form of recommendations to the Archivist of the United States about how to improve the administration of the FOIA.  The Committee is composed of government FOIA staff and representatives from the requester community, and the report represents areas where those professionals’ ideas for improvement overlap.  The Committee also sought to foster dialogue between these two groups who otherwise do not have an opportunity to discuss these issues.

The Committee’s Recommendations

Improving proactive disclosure. The Committee recommends that the Archivist direct OGIS to publish as a best practice that agencies proactively post specific categories of records, including calendars of top agency officials, unclassified reports provided to Congress, FOIA logs, and other categories identified below. The best practice also offers methods to ensure FOIA logs are most useful, and provides considerations for agencies when identifying additional areas for proactive disclosure.

Balancing proactive disclosure and accessibility obligations. The Committee recommends that the Archivist direct OGIS to publish a best practice encouraging agencies to avoid the removal of documents already posted on agency websites that are not currently compliant with Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 794d. Instead, the best practice would be to remediate such documents. When agencies are concerned about the practicality of remediation, the best practice would be to conduct an “undue burden” analysis by balancing Section 508 with their FOIA statutory obligations; the Rehabilitation Act allows agencies to release electronic documents that are not Section 508-compliant if rendering them compliant would “impose an undue burden” on the agency.

Improving FOIA Searches. The Committee recommends that the Archivist address the lack of public information about current methods and technologies agencies use to search for responsive records by: (1) requesting that the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Office of Information Policy (OIP) affirmatively collect this type of information in next year’s Chief FOIA Officer (CFO) Reports, and (2) recommending that the CFO Council work with the Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council to explore the technological issues related to searches and to promote best practices. The Committee further recommends that the Archivist suggest a modification to the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to ensure that all agencies consider FOIA obligations when acquiring electronic records management software and that the Archivist also direct OGIS to examine and report on the use of appropriate FOIA performance standards for federal employees.

Making efficient use of agency resources. The Committee recommends that the Archivist direct OGIS to publish as best practices a number of identified strategies to ensure agencies maximize the use of available resources. These best practices address several issues, including staffing, career incentives, workflow, accountability, and technology.

The full report is available here.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He was a member of the 2016-2018 FOIA Advisory Committee.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Media, Blog Learn More
04/13/2018

Oversight Victory: Tax Regulations Now Subject to OMB Review

In a major win for oversight and constitutional governance, the White House Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) and the Department of the Treasury have scrapped a decades-old agreement that exempted many IRS tax regulations from independent review and oversight.  In its place, the agencies have set up a new agreement that requires Treasury to submit important tax regulations to OMB’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) for review pursuant to Executive Order 12,866 (“EO 12,866”) just like nearly every other agency.

This change came after an investigative report from Cause of Action Institute and a sustained campaign over the past few months from supporters of OIRA review.  From a transparency perspective, this agreement is already an improvement because it has been announced publicly, posted on Treasury’s website, and not kept secret for thirty-five years, like the previous agreement.

 

The New Memorandum of Agreement

The new agreement will require Treasury to submit the following categories of tax regulations to OIRA for review:

All three categories are well conceived.  First, one of the main focuses of OIRA review has always been interagency consultation.  And IRS rules can overlap with rules from the Department of Labor and, increasingly in the wake of the Affordable Care Act, the Department of Health and Human Services.  Allowing those and other agencies to weigh in on proposed tax regulations is an appropriate and necessary level of oversight, and can lead to better policymaking.  At the Senate hearing where the agreement was unveiled, Senator Lankford asked Treasury General Counsel Brent McIntosh who will make the determination of whether a new rule is likely to create a conflict with another agency.  McIntosh replied that, under the agreement, Treasury will submit a list of rules to OIRA on a quarterly basis and OIRA will then be in a position to flag rules that may create a conflict.

Second, Treasury will send OIRA tax regulations that raise novel legal or policy issues.  These are exactly the type of rules should not be decided in a vacuum and when independent review from OIRA and others can provide a fresh look at novel questions.  This is also an existing category of rules that are covered by EO 12,866 and so it makes sense to include tax regulations in this existing mandate.

Third, and finally, the new agreement includes tax regulations that are likely to have an annual non-revenue impact on the economy of $100 million or more.  This is the existing threshold for significant regulatory actions for other agencies.  The agreement makes a distinction for the “non-revenue” impact of tax regulations.  This is a commonsense distinction because OIRA review and cost-benefit considerations should be focusing on the distortionary impacts of regulatory choices, not money transferred to the fisc.  This modification of the existing language in EO 12,866 was necessary to fit the existing system to the way tax regulations work.  At the hearing, Senator Lankford asked McIntosh which rules from the 2017 tax cuts may meet this threshold.  McIntosh estimated that rules related to pass-through entities, interest expense deductions, bonus depreciation, section 199A, partnerships under section 512, and section 951A could now be subject to OIRA review.

 

The New MOA Puts OIRA in Control

The new agreement includes an important provision that bars Treasury from rushing rules out the door to the Federal Register before OIRA has signed off.

In order for the president and the White House to properly oversee the Executive Branch, they must be able to control its regulatory actions.  This provision makes it explicit that OIRA gets the final say.

 

Agreement Addresses Concerns about Delay and Expertise

Perhaps the biggest pushback against subjecting tax regulations to the same review that applies to other agencies’ rules was concerns about delay.  The new agreement addresses that issue by putting a 45-day clock on OIRA review and a special 10-business-day expedited review for rules stemming from the 2017 tax cuts.  Responding to concerns about OIRA’s expertise, Administrator Naomi Rao announced that Minnesota Law Professor and tax administration expert Kristin Hickman was joining OIRA as an advisor.  And OMB has been staffing up on other tax experts as well.

 

Concerns about the New Agreement

There is at least one concern about the agreement.  It only applies to “tax regulatory actions,” which the agreement gives the same meaning as “regulatory actions” in EO 12,866.  That definition covers “any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the Federal Register) that promulgates or is expected to lead to the promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry, advance notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed rulemaking.”  Noticeably absent from this definition are interpretative rules that are not published in the Federal Register.  The IRS is notorious for trying to claim that its rules are interpretative and do not need to follow the strictures of the Administrative Procedure Act.  (CoA Institute recently filed an amicus brief in a case challenging this behavior.)  It remains to be seen whether the IRS and Treasury will try to assert that interpretative rules do not meet the definition of a “regulatory action” under EO 12,866 and thus do not need to be sent to OIRA for review.  A fair reading of the term “regulatory action” should include interpretative rules, even under the IRS’s improperly broad definition of that term.

But overall a dramatic improvement in the oversight of tax regulations and milestone in the project to end so-called tax exceptionalism and bring IRS under the same administrative law as everyone else.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Media, Blog Learn More
04/4/2018

Sixth Circuit Should Follow Supreme Court’s Precedent and Recognize Limits of Anti-Injunction Act

Today, Cause of Action Institute filed an amicus brief in CIC Services, Inc. v. IRS in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.  At issue in the case is whether the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits courts from reviewing whether the IRS complied with the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) when it issued a notice related to captive insurance companies.  We urged to appellate court to reverse the district court’s ruling that the Act blocks the suit and to resist the temptation to extend the D.C. Circuit’s flawed reasoning from Florida Bankers.

Notice 2016-66 and Captive Insurance

The rule at issue is contained in Notice 2016-66.  The IRS believes that small companies are using captive insurance companies (i.e., a type of self-insurance vehicle owned by the company or an affiliate) as a tax shelter.  But the IRS isn’t really sure if they are or what types of captives could be problematic.  So the IRS created a new category of “reportable transaction” known as a “transaction of interest,” which requires companies to proactively disclose when they are using a captive insurance company to self-insure.

The problem is that this creates a recordkeeping and reporting burden on small businesses and threatens fines if they do not comply.  CIC Services, the plaintiff-appellant in the case, estimates it would require hundreds of hours of labor and more than $100,000 to comply with the notice.  Further, “reportable transactions” are a scarlet letter in the tax world, and many businesses would rather avoid the underlying behavior than disclose they are engaging in a “reportable transaction.”

The IRS is doing all of this without notice and comment, without studying the adverse impact of its fishing expedition, and in conflict with Congress repeatedly authorizing captive insurance vehicles for small businesses.  CIC Services is also challenging whether the IRS can create a “transaction of interest” without issuing a formal regulation because Congress has limited the IRS’s ability to make “reportable transactions” to those “as determined under regulations prescribed” by the agency.[1]  A simple notice does not meet this standard.

An Overbroad Use of the Anti-Injunction Act Stands in the Way

The parties’ dispute over Notice 2016-66 and whether it violates substantive and procedural limitations on the agency has all the makings of a rather pedestrian APA case.  This is why we have preenforcement judicial review of agency rulemaking.  Enter the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits suits “for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person.”[2]  The district court agreed with the IRS that the Act blocked the CIC Services suit.

But Notice 2016-66 deals with neither the “assessment” nor the “collection” of any tax; it creates a reporting requirement.  The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously has held that “notice and reporting requirements precede the steps of ‘assessment’ and ‘collection’” and that suits challenging reporting requirements do not “restrain” those activities and do not trigger the Anti-Injunction Act.[3]    But the D.C. Circuit recently ignored the Supreme Court’s decision in Direct Marketing in Florida Bankers[4] and the Six Circuit may be tempted to extend the D.C. Circuit’s ruling.  CoA Institute submitted an amicus brief in support of a cert petition in Florida Bankers, but the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

CoA Institute Shows the Court the Consequences of an Overbroad Anti-Injunction Act

The litigants in the case will present the court with all of the issues above.  CoA Institute’s contribution was to introduce the court to the consequences of allowing IRS rulemaking to go unreviewed.  We presented the research underlying our recent investigative report, Evading Oversight: the Origins and Implications of the IRS Claim that its Rules Do Not Have an Economic Impact.  The danger of allowing the IRS to continue to use an over-expansive reading of the Anti-Injunction Act to block judicial review of its rulemakings is that the IRS will continue to ignore the substantive and procedural limitations on its authority.

Congress and the president have established a series of oversight mechanisms to ensure that agencies are complying with procedural requirements, taking public comments into account, and properly mitigating the adverse impacts of their rules, when possible.  But the IRS has erected a series of self-made exemptions from these oversight requirements.  One of those exemptions is at issue in CIC Services: does the IRS have to comply with the APA when it promulgates legislative rules?  A broad reading of the AIA blocks the courts from answering that question and so the IRS continues to flout the rules.

Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit should reject any invitation to extend Florida Bankers, adhere to Supreme Court precedent from Direct Marketing, and reverse the district court’s ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act prevents preenforcement judicial review of whether the IRS complied with the APA when it issued Notice 2016-66.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

[1] 26 U.S.C. § 6707A(c)(1).

[2] 26 U.S.C. § 7421.

[3] Direct Mktg. Ass’n v. Brohl, 135 S. Ct. 1124, 1131 (2015).

[4] Florida Bankers Ass’n v. Dep’t of Treasury, 799 F.3d 1065 (D.C. Cir. 2015)

Media, Blog Learn More
03/13/2018

IRS Seeks to Halt Fifth Circuit Appeal of Controversial Inversion Rule, Submits Final Rule for White House OMB Review

In January, Cause of Action Institute released a report highlighting IRS exemptions from various regulatory oversight mechanisms.  This report kicked off a flurry of activity, and Treasury and OMB are now in talks about whether and how the IRS should continue to be functionally exempt from White House review of IRS rulemakings.  A recent development in a closely watched Fifth Circuit case challenging an Obama-era rulemaking on inversions shows the effort may be bearing fruit.

In April 2016, the Obama Administration issued a controversial rule attempting to block inversions, a business reorganization technique designed to provide relief from high U.S. corporate taxes.  The IRS made this rule by issuing a Notice and publishing a proposed rule in the Federal Register.  Because IRS rules are effective from the date of the Notice, the agency was in no hurry to complete the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) rulemaking process that it had begun with the proposed rule and request for comment.  The Obama Administration ended without the rule ever being finalized but the Notice continued to be in effect.

The Chamber of Commerce sued the IRS over the inversion rule, claiming that the agency failed to comply with APA rulemaking procedures and that the substantive rule was in excess of its statutory authority.  The IRS tried to use the Anti-Injunction Act (“AIA”) to block the suit, as it often does.  But, in October 2017, a district court in Texas ruled that the AIA did not deny the court jurisdiction over the case and that the IRS did indeed violate the APA.  The court than invalidated the temporary rule.  The IRS promptly appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

IRS Moves to Stay Appeal of Inversion Rule Decision

But, in a twist, last week the IRS moved the appellate court to stay the proceedings because it was restarting the long-dormant APA process and finalizing the underlying rule.  In its motion seeking a stay (or a 45-day extension), counsel for the IRS wrote that it needs “to reevaluate whether [the IRS] should proceed with th[e] appeal[.]”  The IRS also told the Fifth Circuit that:

Having completed notice and comment, Treasury and the IRS plan to finalize the proposed regulation. That process is nearly complete. A draft of the final regulation has been prepared, and it has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for review. The final regulation would replace the temporary regulation that is at issue in this case, which will be removed.

Accordingly, we respectfully request that briefing of this case be stayed until a final regulation is published in the Federal Register, during which time the Government will evaluate whether it should proceed with this appeal or dismiss it.

This is an interesting development.  The inversion rule remains controversial and whether it is still necessary, following the recent changes to the corporate tax rate, is an open question.  But it now appears that Treasury and IRS are rethinking whether it is wise to press the government’s current disadvantage on the AIA and APA compliance in the Fifth Circuit.  This case could provide a clear circuit split with the D.C. Circuit (following Florida Bankers, which held the AIA blocked pre-enforcement review in APA challenges to IRS rules) on the proper application of the AIA.  So we may be seeing a strategic retreat by the IRS trying to limit the damage from its earlier loss in the district court.  But it is good to see that the agency is involving OMB in this finalization process.

We’ll have to wait to see what OMB says about the rule, whether the IRS does indeed finalize the rule, what form that final inversion rule will take, whether the Fifth Circuit grants the stay, and, ultimately, whether the IRS will back out of this appeal.  Stay tuned.

Update: The Fifth Circuit did not act on the stay motion before the deadline for the IRS to file its opening brief, which it timely did on March 16.

Update 2: On March 22, the Fifth Circuit denied the stay motion and the case is proceeding.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

 

Media, Blog Learn More
02/20/2018

Treasury and OMB are Reconsidering IRS Oversight Exemption

I’ve been writing about the series of self-created exemptions the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has been using to evade oversight of its rulemakings.  One of those exemptions is tied to White House review pursuant to Executive Order 12,866 at the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.  Today, for the first time, the agency publicly revealed that it is in talks with the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) to review that exemption.

The Trump Administration’s Departments of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Labor, and the Treasury just released a proposed rule that would allow Americans to buy short-term health insurance plans that would not be affected by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act’s mandates that are driving up premiums and limiting choice.  Housed within that proposed rule is a microcosm of the problem I’ve been highlighting.

On pages 17–28, HHS and Labor conduct a series of regulatory assessments, including an explanation of what the costs, benefits, advantages, and disadvantages of the proposed rule are.  They even include an analysis of the number of enrollees likely to take advantage of the proposal and the impact on the individual market exchanges.  IRS?  Not so much.  As has been its practice, the IRS simply claims that “[c]ertain IRS regulations, including this one, are exempt from the requirements of Executive Order 12866 . . .  Therefore, a regulatory impact assessment is not required.”

However, the IRS also reveals that CoA Institute’s efforts to urge the Trump Administration to review the exemption is starting to bear fruit.  The IRS states that “[p]ursuant to Executive Order 13789, the Treasury Department and OMB are currently reviewing the scope and implementation of the existing exemption.”

IRS Section from Proposed Rule on Short-Term Insurance

Here’s hoping they go further than simply review the scope and implementation, and resolve to end the practice that allows the IRS to give short shrift to the impacts of its rules, while other agencies, like HHS and Labor here, do their homework.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

Media, Blog Learn More
02/14/2018

Congress Investigates IRS for Trying to Evade Oversight

Over the past two weeks, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (“HSGAC”) Chairman Ron Johnson and HSGAC Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs Chairman James Lankford have sent two letters to investigate the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) claim that any economic impact from the agency’s rules is due to the underlying statute and not its regulatory choices.  Cause of Action Institute (“CoA Institute”) profiled the IRS claim, its implications, and the role of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in a recent investigative report and op-ed.

HSGAC Letter to OIRA

On February 1, 2018, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford sent a letter to OIRA urging the White House regulatory office to reconsider a “longstanding agreement between [OIRA] and the Department of the Treasury to exempt regulations issued by the [IRS] from the requirements contained in Executive Order 12866.”

In 1983, OIRA, under President Reagan, agreed to create a three-tiered system to review IRS rules, which has resulted in very few IRS rules being sent to the White House regulatory office for pre-publication review.[1]  The IRS finally released the long-secret agreement in response to a Freedom of Information Act request from CoA Institute.  The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) has also called for the agreement to be revisited.

In their letter, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford:

strongly urge[d] [OIRA] to revisit the regulatory agreement between OIRA and Treasury, as directed by President Trump’s EO 13789, with a critical eye as to why this agreement is necessary.  [They] also encourage[d] OIRA to implement all the recommendations in GAO’s September 2016 report and provide a full explanation to the Committee and Subcommittee in the event that OIRA declines to implement any of GAO’s recommendations.

The Chairmen also announced that they “intend[] to hold an oversight hearing in the very near future regarding OIRA activities.  The issues outlined in this letter will likely constitute a major part of this hearing.”

This effort is important because OIRA plays a key role in coordinating and legitimizing Executive Branch regulatory actions.  If an agency is able to make federal regulatory policy without oversight from the President, that policy not only lacks independent review but also political legitimacy.  OIRA is well-positioned to rein in the IRS and demand that the agency begin to do the same pre-publication regulatory cost-benefit analysis and economic-impact analysis as other federal agencies.

It will be interesting to hear OIRA Administrator Neomi Rao’s thoughts on the long-standing, long-secret memo at a congressional oversight hearing, as I do not believe OIRA as an institution has spoken on the issue since 1993.  Hopefully, Administrator Rao will take this opportunity to review and end the agreement between OIRA and Treasury and bring the IRS into line with other agencies.

HSGAC Letter to IRS

In addition, on February 13, 2018, Chairmen Johnson and Lankford sent a letter to Acting IRS Commissioner David Kautter presenting many of the findings from CoA Institute’s report.[2]  In their letter, the Chairmen summarized the report’s central finding:

[CoA Institute’s] report found that the IRS “takes the position that its rules have no economic effect because any impact is attributable to the underlying law that authorized the rule, not the agency’s decision to issue or alter the rule.”  The IRS’s position apparently dates back nearly 20 years, when the IRS Office of Chief Counsel issued a notice taking this position.  The report notes that while the IRS initially limited its economic analysis exemption to only “interpretative regulations and revenue impacts, both limitations fell away over time.”

The Chairmen asked the IRS a number of oversight questions, to learn more about the agency’s behavior and any justification it may have.  First, they asked whether “the IRS has conducted any retrospective economic impact analyses of regulations that did not receive an initial economic impact analysis.”  I am dubious that the IRS has done so.  If it believes its rules are exempt from initial economic impact analysis, I doubt its going back to see if it was right or wrong.  Any retroactive analysis likely would just shift blame back to the underlying statute again.

Second, the Chairmen noted that in 2016 “the Small Business Administration’s [(“SBA”)] Office of Advocacy wrote to the IRS disputing the agency’s assertion that the IRS’s regulations are not subject to the requirement to conduct economic impact analyses.”  The Chairmen want to know if the IRS ever responded to SBA or if any other agencies have pushed back on the IRS claim.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Chairmen asked the IRS to “explain the process by which a determination is made as to whether the agency will or will not conduct an economic impact analysis on a proposed regulation.”  This final question is critical because, up to now, the IRS has provided very little explanation of how it goes about making the determination in an individualized case that a certain rule’s impact flows from the statute.  CoA Institute’s work in this area shows that the agency developed these self-bestowed exemptions over time, found them a convenient tool to avoid additional pre-publication work, and rarely gives more than a boilerplate claim that the exemption applies to certain cases.

It is heartening to see that Chairmen Johnson and Lankford are beginning the oversight process on this issue.  I look forward to seeing the responses from OIRA and the IRS.

James Valvo is Counsel and Senior Policy Advisor at Cause of Action Institute.  He is the principal author of Evading Oversight.  You can follow him on Twitter @JamesValvo.

[1] In 2016, CoA Institute found that “over the past ten years, the IRS has submitted only eight rules to OIRA for regulatory review and deemed only one of those rules significant.  Those eight rules are less than one percent of the final rules the IRS published in the Federal Register over the same period.”

[2] President Trump recently nominated Chuck Rettig to be the new IRS Commissioner, and CoA Institute has urged the Senate Finance Committee to press Mr. Rettig on whether he will end this IRS practice of evading oversight of its regulatory actions.

Blog, Media Learn More