[Senate Report 114-14]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 37
114th Congress } { Report
SENATE
1st Session } { 114-14
======================================================================
IMPROVE ACCESS AND ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
_______
April 14, 2015.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Hatch, from the Committee on Finance,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 903]
The Committee on Finance, having considered an original
bill, S. 903, to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to
improve access and administration of the United States Tax
Court, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon
without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
I. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND............................................2
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL...........................................2
A. Access to the United States Tax Court................. 2
1. Filing period for interest abatement cases (sec.
101 of the bill and sec. 6404 of the Code)....... 2
2. Small tax case election for interest abatement
cases (sec. 102 of the bill and secs. 6404 and
7463 of the Code)................................ 3
3. Venue for appeal of spousal relief and collection
cases (sec. 103 of the bill and sec. 7482 of the
Code)............................................ 4
4. Suspension of running of period for filing
petition of spousal relief and collection cases
(sec. 104 of the bill and secs. 6015 and 6330 of
the Code)........................................ 5
5. Application of federal rules of evidence (sec. 105
of the bill and sec. 7453 of the Code)........... 6
B. U.S. Tax Court Administration......................... 7
1. Judicial conduct and disability procedures (sec.
201 of the bill and new sec. 7466 of the Code)... 7
2. Administration, judicial conference, and fees
(sec. 202 of the bill; Code sec. 7473; and new
secs. 7470 and 7470A of the Code)................ 8
C. Clarification relating to the United States Tax Court
(sec. 301 of the bill and sec. 7441 of the Code)..... 9
III.BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL.......................................10
IV. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE...........................................11
V. REGULATORY IMPACT AND OTHER MATTERS..............................11
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED............12
I. LEGISLATIVE BACKGROUND
The Committee on Finance, having considered S. 903, a bill
to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to improve access
and administration of the United States Tax Court, reports
favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the
bill do pass.
Background and need for legislative action
Background.--Based on a proposal recommended by Chairman
Hatch and Ranking Member Wyden, the Committee on Finance marked
up original legislation (a bill to amend the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 to improve access and administration of the U.S.
Tax Court) on February 11, 2015, and, with a majority present,
ordered the bill favorably reported, without amendments, on
that date. This report describes the provisions of the bill.
Need for legislative action.--Changes to the provisions
limiting access to the U.S. Tax Court are needed to assure
access to a prepayment forum for persons claiming spousal
relief, challenging the propriety of certain collection actions
or requesting interest abatement and to conform the treatment
of bankrupt taxpayers seeking such relief with those seeking
redetermination of other types of administrative action. In
addition, the perceived independence of the U.S. Tax Court
would be enhanced by greater autonomy in its administration of
fees it collects, as well as clarification that it is not part
of the Executive Branch.
II. EXPLANATION OF THE BILL
A. Access to the United States Tax Court
1. Filing period for interest abatement cases (sec. 101 of the bill and
sec. 6404 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
The Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended vests with
the United States Tax Court (herein the ``Tax Court'')
jurisdiction over actions brought by a taxpayer for review of a
denial of a request for interest abatement if (1) the taxpayer
meets certain net worth requirements, and (2) the petition is
filed within 180 days of mailing of a final determination by
the Secretary not to abate interest.\1\ In the absence of the
mailing of a final determination by the Secretary, the Code
does not authorize the filing of a Tax Court petition and,
accordingly, does not confer jurisdiction on the Tax Court in
such circumstances.\2\ Hence, where the Secretary fails to
respond to a taxpayer's claim for abatement of interest, the
taxpayer is unable to seek judicial review of the claim.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Sec. 6404(h). Unless otherwise stated, all section references
are to the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the ``Code'').
\2\Sec. 6404(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
Claims for abatement of interest generally, in whole or in
part, raise questions of administrative error, inaction or
abuse of discretion as a basis for suspending accrual of
interest on underpayments of tax. The only prepayment forum in
which such claims can be addressed is the U.S. Tax Court. The
Committee believes that inaction by the government after a
reasonable time in which to consider the claim for abatement
should not deprive taxpayers' access to judicial review of
claims that may implicate administrative error, inaction or
abuse of discretion.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision amends the Code, relating to review of
denials of requests for abatement of interest, to provide that
a petition under the section may be filed with the Tax Court
upon the expiration of a 180-day period after the filing with
the IRS of a claim (in such form as the Secretary may
prescribe) for abatement of interest, in instances where the
Secretary has failed to issue a final determination within that
period.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective for claims filed after the date
of enactment.
2. Small tax case election for interest abatement cases (sec. 102 of
the bill and secs. 6404 and 7463 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
The Code provides certain proceedings for small tax cases,
generally those that involve disputes of $50,000 or less.\3\
Under the Code, the Tax Court has exclusive jurisdiction to
review a failure by the Secretary to abate interest.\4\
However, the Code presently does not authorize cases to be
conducted using small tax case procedures, unless the issue
arises as part of a request for review of collection
actions.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Sec. 7463. These cases are handled under less formal procedures
than regular cases. The Tax Court's decision in a small tax case is
final and cannot be appealed to any court by the IRS or by the
petitioner. See sec. 7463, Title XVII of the United States Tax Court
rules, and
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/forms/Petition_Kit.pdf.
\4\Sec. 6404(h). Hinck v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 2011 (2007).
\5\Secs. 7463, 6330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
At present, a petition to the Tax Court to review a
determination denying interest abatement is permitted, but
election to apply the small tax case procedures is generally
not available. Small tax case procedures permit many taxpayers
with relatively small or uncomplicated issues to seek speedy
resolution in a less formal proceeding in which they can
represent themselves, without assistance of counsel. The
Committee believes that access to simplified court procedures
is appropriate in small claims for interest abatement,
regardless of whether the issue is raised as part of a request
for review of collection actions taken by the IRS.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision amends the Code, relating to additional cases
which may be conducted as a small tax case, by adding a new
paragraph (3) enumerating petitions brought under section
6404(h), for review of a decision by the Secretary not to abate
interest, as a matter which may be conducted under section
7463. The provision extends the small tax case procedures to
actions for interest abatement in which the total amount of
interest for which abatement is sought does not exceed $50,000.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision applies to cases pending as of the day after
the date of enactment, and cases commencing after such date of
enactment.
3. Venue for appeal of spousal relief and collection cases (sec. 103 of
the bill and sec. 7482 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
Sections 6015, 6320, and 6330 provide rights for taxpayers,
principally through the establishment of administrative
procedures and judicial review of administrative actions taken
in matters involving spousal relief from joint and several
liability and collection of taxes by lien and levy. The Tax
Court is vested with jurisdiction to render decisions on the
taxpayer's entitlement to relief under these provisions.
Section 7482 provides for appellate review of Tax Court
decisions by the U.S. Court of Appeals and subsection (b) of
that statute governs venue for such review. In general, section
7482 enumerates types of cases appealable to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the circuit in which is located the taxpayer's
legal residence, principal place of business, or principal
office or agency and then establishes a default rule for review
of all other cases by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Sections 6015, 6320, and 6330 are not
among those expressly identified as appealable to the circuit
of residence or principal business/office. However, routine
practice since enactment, on the part of both the litigants and
the courts, has been to treat such cases as appealable to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit corresponding to the
petitioner's residence or principal business or office.
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee has learned that the failure to identify
spousal relief cases and certain collection due process cases
as cases in which venue for appeal should be determined by
legal residence, place of business or principal office has led
to questions about whether the default rule for venue for
appeal should apply. Under the default rule, venue would lie
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia,
rather than the circuit in which the taxpayer's residence or
business is located. The Committee believes that application of
the default rule would unnecessarily complicate access to
appellate review. Rather than relying on continuation of the
ability of the litigants to agree on a mutually acceptable
venue for appeal, the Committee believes it is preferable to
correct the venue statutes to ensure access to the venue that
corresponds to residence or principal business or office.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision amends section 7482(b) to clarify that Tax
Court decisions rendered in cases involving petitions under
sections 6015, 6320, or 6330 follow the generally applicable
rule for appellate review. That rule provides that the cases
are appealable to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in
which is located the petitioner's legal residence in the case
of an individual or the petitioner's principal place of
business or principal office of agency in the case of an entity
other than an individual.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision applies to petitions filed after the date of
enactment. No inference is intended with respect to the
application of section 7482 to petitions filed on or before the
date of enactment.
4. Suspension of running of period for filing petition of spousal
relief and collection cases (sec. 104 of the bill and secs. 6015 and
6330 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
Section 6015(e) addresses procedures by which taxpayers may
petition the Tax Court to determine the appropriate relief
available to the individual in matters involving spousal relief
from joint and several liability and collection of taxes by
lien and levy. It also provides for suspension of the running
of a period of limitations\6\ on the collection of assessments
that may apply, limits on tax court jurisdictions in certain
circumstances, and rules for providing adequate notice of
proceedings to the other spouse.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\Sec. 6502.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 6330 disallows levies to be made on property or
rights to property unless the Secretary has notified the
taxpayer in writing of their right to a hearing before such
levy is made. Under subsection (d), once a determination is
made, the taxpayer may appeal the determination to the Tax
Court within 30 days. Under subsection (e), the levy actions
which are the subject of the requested hearing and the running
of any relevant period of limitations\7\ are suspended for the
period during which such hearing and appeals are pending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Secs. 6502, 6531, and 6532.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Neither section 6015 or 6330 includes a rule similar to the
coordination rule found in the general provisions regarding
filing a petition with the Tax Court for taxpayers in
bankruptcy.\8\ Under that rule, the period of the automatic
stay in bankruptcy is disregarded, and the taxpayer may file
its petition with the Tax Court within 60 days after the stay
is lifted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Sec. 6213(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
To ensure that taxpayers seeking spousal relief or
collection due process have rights similar to those of other
litigants in the Tax Court, the Committee believes it is
appropriate to extend the general rule of section 6213(f) and
conform the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code with the
limitations period for petitions to the Tax Court for spousal
relief and collection due process cases.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision adds to existing rules a suspension of the
running of a period of limitations on filing a petition as
described in section 6015(e) for a taxpayer who is prohibited
from filing such a petition under U.S.C. Title 11. The
suspension is for the period during which the taxpayer is
prohibited from filing such a petition and for 60 days
thereafter.
The provision also adds to existing rules a suspension of
the running of a period of limitations on filing a petition as
described in section 6330(e) for a taxpayer who is prohibited
from filing such a petition under U.S.C. Title 11. The
suspension is for the period during which the taxpayer is
prohibited from filing such a petition and for 30 days
thereafter.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision applies to petitions filed under section
6015(e) of the Code after the date of enactment and to
petitions filed under section 6330 of the Code after the date
of enactment.
5. Application of federal rules of evidence (sec. 105 of the bill and
sec. 7453 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
In general, the Code provides that the proceedings of the
Tax Court shall be conducted in accordance with rules of
practice and procedure (other than rules of evidence) as
prescribed by the Tax Court, and in accordance with the rules
of evidence applicable in trials without a jury in the United
States District Court of the District of Columbia.\9\ The Tax
Court has interpreted the Code to require the Tax Court to
apply the evidentiary precedent of the D.C. Circuit in all
cases,\10\ an exception to the Tax Court's regular practice
under Golsen v. Commissioner\11\ of applying the precedent of
the circuit court of appeals to which its decision is
appealable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Sec. 7453.
\10\All cases except those cases in which section 7453 does not
apply, e.g., small tax cases..
\11\54 T.C. 742 (1970), aff'd, 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal Rules of Evidence\12\ are the applicable rules
of evidence for all Federal district courts in all judicial
districts, including the District of Columbia. In addition, the
United States Code includes specific rules and procedures for
evidence.\13\ Rule 143 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
promulgated by the Tax Court, states ``those rules include the
rules of evidence in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
any rules of evidence generally applicable in the Federal
courts (including the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\The Federal Rules of Evidence, as amended through 2012, under
the authority of 28 U.S.C. sec. 2074, is available at http://
www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/rules/rules-evidence.pdf. ``The Act to
Establish Rules of Evidence for Certain Courts and Proceedings,'' Pub.
L. No. 93-595 (January 2, 1975).
\13\28 U.S.C. secs. 1731 through 1828.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee believes that present law has led to
confusion about how the Federal Rules of Evidence are to be
applied in a Tax Court proceeding, in some instances
unnecessarily complicating consideration of cases.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision amends the Code to provide that proceedings
of the Tax Court be conducted in accordance with rules of
practice and procedure as prescribed by the Tax Court, and in
accordance with Federal Rules of Evidence. Thus, the Tax Court
will apply the evidentiary precedent of the circuit court of
appeals to which its decision is appealable.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision applies to proceedings commenced after the
date of enactment, and to the extent that it is just and
practicable, to all proceedings pending on such date.
B. U.S. Tax Court Administration
1. Judicial conduct and disability procedures (sec. 201 of the bill and
new sec. 7466 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
Under Title 28 of the United States Code, any person is
authorized to file a complaint alleging that an Article III
Judge has engaged in conduct prejudicial to the effective and
expeditious administration of the business of the courts; the
law also permits any person to allege conduct reflecting a
covered Judge's inability to perform his or her duties because
of mental or physical disability.\14\ A judicial council
exercises specific powers in investigating and taking action
with respect to such complaints, including paying certain fees
and allowances incurred in conducting hearings and awarding
reimbursement of reasonable expenses in appropriate
circumstances from appropriated funds.\15\ Title 28 directs
other Article I courts, including the Court of Federal
Claims\16\ and the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,\17\ to
prescribe similar rules for the filing of complaints with
respect to the conduct or disability of any Judge and for the
investigation and resolution of such complaints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\Judicial Conduct and Disability Act of 1980, 28 U.S.C. sections
351-364. On March 11, 2008, the Judicial Conference of the United
States promulgated rules governing such proceedings.
\15\28 U.S.C. chapter 16.
\16\28 U.S.C. sec. 363.
\17\38 U.S.C. sec. 7253(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the prescriptions of Title 28 for Article III courts
and other Article I courts, there is no statutory provision
related to complaints regarding the conduct or disability of a
Tax Court Judge, Senior Judge, or Special Trial Judge, although
they voluntarily agree to follow the rules contained in the
Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Available at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/
conduct/vol02a-ch02.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
To ensure the integrity of the Tax Court as well as the
public's perception of integrity of the Tax Court, the
Committee believes that the Tax Court needs a process to permit
investigation and resolution of complaints about judges.
Apparently the failure to promulgate such rules is due to
concerns that the Tax Court lacks statutory authority to do so.
Accordingly, the Committee wishes to add explicit statutory
authority to promulgate rules governing the conduct of all
judges of the Tax Court.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision authorizes the Tax Court to prescribe
procedures for the filing of complaints with respect to the
conduct of any judge or special trial judge of the Tax Court
and for the investigation and resolution of such complaints. In
investigating and taking action with respect to such a
complaint, the provision authorizes the Tax Court to exercise
the powers granted to a judicial council under Title 28.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision applies to proceedings commenced after the
date which is 180 days after the date of enactment, and to the
extent that it is just and practicable, to all proceedings
pending on such date.
2. Administration, judicial conference, and fees (sec. 202 of the bill;
Code sec. 7473; and new secs. 7470 and 7470A of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
Congress established the Tax Court as a court of law under
Article I with its governing provisions in the Code. However,
provisions governing most Federal courts are codified in Title
28 of the United States Code. Congress has, from time to time,
amended the governing laws of other Federal courts and the laws
that apply to the Administrative Office of the United States
Courts relating to administering certain authorities of the
judiciary.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\These authorities are available to Article III courts either
directly or through the laws enacted for the Administrative Office of
the United States Courts (AOUSC) under U.S.C. title 28 (see, e.g., 28
U.S.C. secs. 601, et seq.) and to other Article I courts such as the
U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims under 38 U.S.C. sec. 7287.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal courts, including Article I courts such as the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, have express statutory
authority to conduct an annual judicial conference.\20\ The Tax
Court has conducted periodic judicial conferences in order to
consider the business of the Tax Court and to discuss means of
improving the administration of justice within the Tax Court's
jurisdiction. The Tax Court's judicial conferences have been
attended by persons admitted to practice before the Tax Court,
including representatives of the Internal Revenue Service, the
Department of Justice, private practitioners, low-income
taxpayer clinics, and by other persons active in the legal
profession.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\38 U.S.C. sec. 7286.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal courts are authorized to deposit certain court fees
into a special fund of the Treasury to be available to offset
funds appropriated for the operation and maintenance of the
courts.\21\ The Tax Court's filing fees are statutorily set at
``not in excess of $60'' and are covered into the Treasury as
miscellaneous receipts.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\28 U.S.C. secs. 1941(A) and 1931.
\22\Sec. 7473.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee believes that it would enhance the perceived
independence of the Tax Court if fees collected by the Tax
Court were deposited in a special fund for use to offset costs
of administration of the Tax Court, as other Article I courts
and all Article III courts do.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision amends the Code to provide the Tax Court with
the same general management, administrative, and expenditure
authorities that are available to Article III courts and the
Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
The provision amends the Code to provide the Tax Court with
express authority to conduct an annual judicial conference and
charge a reasonable registration fee.
The provision amends the Code to authorize the Tax Court to
deposit certain fees into a special fund of the Treasury to be
available to offset funds appropriated for the operation and
maintenance of the Tax Court.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective on the date of enactment.
C. Clarification relating to the United States Tax Court (sec. 301 of
the bill and sec. 7441 of the Code)
PRESENT LAW
The Tax Court was created in 1969 as a court of record
established under Article I of the U.S. Constitution with
jurisdiction over tax matters as conferred upon it under the
Code.\23\ It superseded an independent agency of the Executive
Branch known as the Tax Court of the United States, which
itself superseded the Board of Tax Appeals.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\Sec. 7441.
\24\The Board of Tax Appeals was created in 1924 to review
deficiency determinations. In 1942, it was renamed the Tax Court of the
United States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As judges of an Article I court, Tax Court judges do not
have lifetime tenure nor do they enjoy the salary protection
afforded judges in Article III courts. They are subject to
removal only for cause, by the President.\25\ The authority to
remove a judge for cause was the basis for a recent
unsuccessful challenge to an order of the Tax Court, in which
the taxpayer invoked the separation of powers doctrine to argue
that the removal authority is an unconstitutional interference
of the executive branch with the exercise of judicial powers.
In rejecting that challenge, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia held in Kuretski v. Commissioner\26\ that
the Tax Court is not part of the Article III Judicial Branch
and is an independent Executive Branch agency, while
acknowledging that the Tax Court is a ``Court of Law'' for
purposes of the Appointments Clause.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\Sec. 7443(f) permits the President to remove a Tax Court judge
for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office, after
notice and opportunity for a public hearing.
\26\Kuretski v. Commissioner, 755 F.3d 929 (D.C. Cir. 2014),
petition for cert. filed (U.S. Nov. 26, 2014) (No. 14-622), available
at http://www.procedurallytaxing.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/
Kuretski-Supreme-Court-Petition.pdf. For an explanation of the status
of Article I courts in comparison to the Article III judiciary, see,
Nolan, Andrew and Thompson, Richard M., Congressional Research Service,
Congressional Power to Create Federal Courts: A Legal Overview (Report
No. R43746), October 1, 2014, available at http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/
misc/R43746.pdf.
\27\Kuretski v. Commissioner, p. 932, distinguishing Freytag v.
Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
REASONS FOR CHANGE
The Committee is concerned that statements in Kuretski v.
Commissioner may lead the public to question the independence
of the Tax Court, especially in relation to the Department of
Treasury or the Internal Revenue Service. The Committee wishes
to remove any uncertainty caused by Kuretski v. Commissioner,
and to ensure that there is no appearance of institutional
bias.
EXPLANATION OF PROVISION
The provision clarifies that the Tax Court is not an agency
of, and shall be independent of, the Executive Branch.
EFFECTIVE DATE
The provision is effective upon the date of enactment.
III. BUDGET EFFECTS OF THE BILL
A. Committee Estimates
In compliance with paragraph 11(a) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following statement is made
concerning the estimated budget effects of the revenue
provisions of a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
to improve access and administration of the United States Tax
Court, as reported.
The provisions are estimated to reduce Federal fiscal year
budget receipts by less than $500,000 for the period 2015-2025.
B. Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Budget authority
In compliance with section 308(a)(1) of the Budget Act, the
Committee states that no provisions of the bill as reported
involve new or increased budget authority.
Tax expenditures
In compliance with section 308(a)(2) of the Budget Act, the
Committee states that there are no provisions that affect the
levels of tax expenditures.
C. Consultation With Congressional Budget Office
In accordance with section 403 of the Budget Act, the
Committee advises that the Congressional Budget Office has not
submitted a statement on the bill. The letter from the
Congressional Budget Office will be provided separately.
IV. VOTES OF THE COMMITTEE
In compliance with paragraph 7(b) of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee states that, with a
majority present, a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of
1986 to improve access and administration of the United States
Tax Court, was ordered favorably reported by voice vote on
February 11, 2015.
V. REGULATORY IMPACT AND OTHER MATTERS
A. Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to paragraph 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following
statement concerning the regulatory impact that might be
incurred in carrying out the provisions of the bill.
Impact on individuals and businesses, personal privacy and paperwork
The bill includes various provisions that improve access
and administration of the U.S. Tax Court. The provisions of the
bill are not expected to impose additional administrative
requirements or regulatory burdens on individuals or
businesses.
The provisions of the bill do not impact personal privacy.
B. Unfunded Mandates Statement
This information is provided in accordance with section 423
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. No. 104-
4).
The Committee has determined that the tax provisions of the
reported bill do not contain Federal private sector mandates or
Federal intergovernmental mandates on State, local, or tribal
governments within the meaning of Public Law 104-4, the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
C. Tax Complexity Analysis
Section 4022(b) of the Internal Revenue Service Reform and
Restructuring Act of 1998 (the ``IRS Reform Act'') requires the
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (in consultation with
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department) to
provide a tax complexity analysis. The complexity analysis is
required for all legislation reported by the Senate Committee
on Finance, the House Committee on Ways and Means, or any
committee of conference if the legislation includes a provision
that directly or indirectly amends the Internal Revenue Code
and has widespread applicability to individuals or small
businesses. The staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation has
determined that there are no provisions that are of widespread
applicability to individuals or small businesses.
VI. CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW MADE BY THE BILL, AS REPORTED
In the opinion of the Committee, it is necessary in order
to expedite the business of the Senate, to dispense with the
requirements of paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules
of the Senate (relating to the showing of changes in existing
law made by the bill as reported by the Committee).
[all]