Loving v. Internal Revenue Serv., Civil Action No. 12–385(JEB).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtJAMES E. BOASBERG
Citation917 F.Supp.2d 67
PartiesSabina LOVING, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, et al., Defendants.
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 12–385(JEB).
Decision Date01 February 2013

917 F.Supp.2d 67

Sabina LOVING, et al., Plaintiffs,

Civil Action No. 12–385(JEB).

United States District Court,
District of Columbia.

Jan. 18, 2013.
Opinion Denying Stay Feb. 1, 2013.

Held Invalid

26 C.F.R. § 301.7701–15(a); 31 C.F.R. §§ 10.3(f)(2), 10.4(c), 10.5(b), 10.6(d)(6), (e)(3)

[917 F.Supp.2d 68]

Daniel L. Alban, Scott G. Bullock, Institute for Justice, Arlington, VA, for Plaintiffs.

Joseph E. Hunsader, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendants.


JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge.

To close a gap in the federal oversight of tax professionals, in 2011 the Internal Revenue

[917 F.Supp.2d 69]

Service began regulating hundreds of thousands of non-attorney, non-CPA tax-return preparers who prepare and file tax returns for compensation. The new regulations require each such preparer to pass a qualifying exam, pay an annual application fee, and take fifteen hours of continuing-education courses each year. Agency action, however, requires statutory authority. The IRS interpreted an 1884 statute as enabling these new regulations. That statute allows the IRS to regulate “representatives” who “practice” before it. Believing that tax-return preparers are not covered under the statute, and thus cannot be so regulated, Plaintiffs—three independent tax-return preparers—brought this suit. Plaintiffs and the Government have now cross-moved for summary judgment. Concluding that the statute's text and context unambiguously foreclose the IRS's interpretation, the Court will grant Plaintiffs' Motion.

I. BackgroundA. Statutory and Regulatory Framework

This case turns on whether certain tax-return preparers are representatives who practice before the IRS, and thus are properly subject to the new IRS regulations. (Preparers who are attorneys, CPAs, enrolled agents, or enrolled actuaries are otherwise regulated by the IRS and thus have no bone to pick with the new regulations. See31 C.F.R. § 10.3 (2009).) Before probing that question, however, it helps to know something about the IRS adjudication process. The Court therefore begins by outlining how the IRS resolves disputes about tax liability, then moves to the statutes and regulations at issue in this case.

1. Process for Adjudicating Federal Income Taxes

“The Internal Revenue Service is a bureau of the Department of the Treasury under the immediate direction of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue.” 26 C.F.R. § 601.101(a); see also26 U.S.C. § 7803(a) (Commissioner of Internal Revenue is part of Treasury Department with duties and powers assigned by Treasury Secretary). Taxpayers can progress through three stages of interaction with the IRS: assessment and collection, examination, and appeals.

First up is assessment and collection. Our federal tax system “is basically one of self-assessment” in which each taxpayer must compute the tax due, file a return showing “facts upon which tax liability may be determined and assessed,” and pay the tax due. 26 C.F.R. § 601.103(a). After such a filing (or a failure to file), the Government performs an “assessment”—that is, “the calculation or recording of a tax liability.” United States v. Galletti, 541 U.S. 114, 122, 124 S.Ct. 1548, 158 L.Ed.2d 279 (2004); see26 U.S.C. §§ 6201–6204. “In most cases, the Secretary accepts the self-assessment and simply records the liability of the taxpayer.... [W]here the Secretary rejects the self-assessment of the taxpayer or discovers that the taxpayer has failed to file a return, the Secretary calculates the proper amount of liability and records it in the Government's books.” Galletti, 541 U.S. at 122, 124 S.Ct. 1548. After an assessment, the IRS collects unpaid taxes. See26 C.F.R. § 601.104(c)(1); see also26 U.S.C. §§ 6301–6306.

Next, for some lucky taxpayers, comes the IRS audit, known in tax jargon as an “examination.” See26 C.F.R. §§ 601.103(b), 601.105(a). The IRS may conduct the examination by mail or by in-person interviews, and it will sometimes visit a taxpayer's home or business to examine his books and records. See26 C.F.R. § 601.105(b). “During the examination

[917 F.Supp.2d 70]

of a return a taxpayer may be represented before the examiner by an attorney, certified public accountant, or other representative.” 26 C.F.R. § 601.105(b)(1); see also26 U.S.C. § 7521(b)(2) (during a taxpayer interview, taxpayer may suspend questioning to consult with “an attorney, certified public accountant, enrolled agent, enrolled actuary, or any other person permitted to represent the taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service”).

Last, if the taxpayer and the IRS still disagree, the taxpayer can request an in-person conference with an IRS “Appeals office.” See26 C.F.R. §§ 601.103(b), (c)(1), 601.106. While “[p]roceedings before Appeals are informal,” taxpayers may “designate a qualified representative to act for them.” 26 C.F.R. § 601.106(c). (The taxpayer may then pursue appeals outside the IRS in the U.S. Tax Court, the U.S. Claims Court, or a federal district court. See26 C.F.R. § 601.103(c)(2)-(3).)

2. Statutory and Regulatory Scheme

With that framework in mind, the Court now outlines the statutory and regulatory scheme at play in this case. Under 31 U.S.C. § 330, originally enacted in 1884, the Treasury Secretary has authority to regulate people who practice before the Treasury Department.1 As the IRS is a bureau of the Treasury Department, see26 C.F.R. § 601.101(a), this statute covers practice before the IRS as well. This is so even though the casual student of history knows that the Sixteenth Amendment authorizing the modern federal income tax was not ratified until 1913. In full, the first two subsections of § 330 currently provide:

(a) Subject to section 500 of title 5, the Secretary of the Treasury may—

(1) regulate the practice of representatives of persons before the Department of the Treasury; and

(2) before admitting a representative to practice, require that the representative demonstrate–––

(A) good character;

(B) good reputation;

(C) necessary qualifications to enable the representative to provide to persons valuable service; and

(D) competency to advise and assist persons in presenting their cases.

(b) After notice and opportunity for a proceeding, the Secretary may suspend or disbar from practice before the Department, or censure, a representative who—

(1) is incompetent;

(2) is disreputable;

(3) violates regulations prescribed under this section; or

[917 F.Supp.2d 71]

(4) with intent to defraud, willfully and knowingly misleads or threatens the person being represented or a prospective person to be represented.

The Secretary may impose a monetary penalty on any representative described in the preceding sentence. If the representative was acting on behalf of an employer or any firm or other entity in connection with the conduct giving rise to such penalty, the Secretary may impose a monetary penalty on such employer, firm, or entity if it knew, or reasonably should have known, of such conduct. Such penalty shall not exceed the gross income derived (or to be derived) from the conduct giving rise to the penalty and may be in addition to, or in lieu of, any suspension, disbarment, or censure of the representative.

(Emphasis added.)

Using this statutory authority, the Secretary publishes regulations governing practice before the IRS in the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 31, part 10. The Treasury reprints those regulations under the name “Treasury Department Circular No. 230.” The meat of Circular 230 is a long list of duties and restrictions relating to practice before the IRS, giving content to statutory terms like “incompetent” and “disreputable.” See31 C.F.R. §§ 10.20–.38. Circular 230 also lays out sanctions and sets the rules for disciplinary proceedings. See31 C.F.R. §§ 10.50–.82. These regulations have long applied to attorneys, CPAs, and a handful of other specified tax professionals. See31 C.F.R. § 10.3 (2009).

In 2011, the IRS extended the reach of Circular 230 by bringing tax-return preparers under its coverage. SeeRegulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, 76 Fed.Reg. 32,286 (June 3, 2011) (final rule) (“the Rule”); see alsoRegulations Governing Practice Before the Internal Revenue Service, 75 Fed.Reg. 51,713 (Aug. 23, 2010) (proposed rule). Although technically promulgated by the Treasury Department, this Opinion will usually attribute the new Rule to the IRS. Under the Rule, a tax-return preparer is a person who “prepares for compensation, or who employs one or more persons to prepare for compensation, all or a substantial portion of any return of tax or any claim for refund of tax under the Internal Revenue Code.” 26 C.F.R. § 301.7701–15(a); accord26 U.S.C. § 7701(a)(36); see31 C.F.R. § 10.2(a)(8) (“ Tax return preparer means any individual within the meaning of section 7701(a)(36) and 26 CFR 301.7701–15.”) (emphasis in original). The IRS estimated that the new Rule sweeps in 600,000 to 700,000 new tax-return preparers who were previously unregulated at the federal level. See76 Fed.Reg. at 32,299.

“Practice” as a tax-return preparer for the most part (and for our purposes) “is limited to preparing and signing tax returns and claims for refund, and other documents for submission to the Internal Revenue Service.” 31 C.F.R. § 10.3(f)(2). (In addition, if the IRS audits a tax return that the preparer signed, the preparer may represent the taxpayer during the examination. See31 C.F.R. § 10.3(f)(3). Plaintiffs raise no objection to the IRS using such additional practice as a basis for regulation.) The Rule thus encompasses those preparers whose only “appearance” before the IRS is the preparation and submission of tax returns, and this Opinion's subsequent references to tax-return preparers concern this limited role.

Before engaging in such practices, the new regulations force all tax-return preparers to register with the Secretary. This registration requirement is the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 cases
  • Resolute Forest Prods., Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 14–2103 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • September 9, 2015
    ...ambiguous. "The inquiry here begins ‘where all such inquiries must begin: with the language of the statute itself.’ " Loving v. IRS, 917 F.Supp.2d 67, 74 (D.D.C.2013), aff'd, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C.Cir.2014) (quoting Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S, –––U.S. ––––, 132 S.Ct. 1670, 1......
  • Am. Inst. of Certified Pub. Accountants v. Internal Revenue Serv., Civil Action No. 14-1190 (JEB)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • August 3, 2016
    ...This Court agreed, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs and enjoining enforcement of the rule. See Loving v. IRS (Loving I), 917 F.Supp.2d 67, 74 (D.D.C.2013). On appeal, the D.C. Circuit affirmed, concluding that when a person acts as a tax-return preparer, she is not acting as a "r......
  • United States v. Elsass, Case No. 2:10–cv–336.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. United States District Courts. 6th Circuit. Southern District of Ohio
    • October 17, 2013
    ...they are tax return preparers within the meaning of § 7407, but instead rely on Judge Boasberg's recent decision in Loving v. I.R.S., 917 F.Supp.2d 67 (D.D.C.2013) to argue that they are not tax return preparers. [978 F.Supp.2d 912]Loving dealt with the Secretary of the Treasury's authority......
  • Steele v. United States, Civil Case No. 14-1523 (RCL)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • February 9, 2016
    ...pass a competency examination, pay an annual fee, and take fifteen hours of continuing education courses each year. See Loving v. IRS , 917 F.Supp.2d 67, 69 (D.D.C.2013). In doing so, the IRS relied on a different statute, 31 U.S.C. § 330, which was originally enacted in 1884 and authorizes......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Florida Tax Review Vol. 24 No. 2, March 2021
    • March 22, 2021
    ...and Regulation Will Boost Competence and Accountability of Paid Tax Preparers, 31 VA. TAX REV. 471 (2012). (318.) Loving v. IRS, 917 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2013), aff'd, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. (319.) 917 F.Supp.2d at 72. (320.) Id. (321.) Loving v. IRS, 742 F.3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. 2014). (32......
  • Foreign Income & Taxpayers: Analysis of and reflections on recent cases and rulings.
    • United States
    • The Tax Adviser Vol. 54 No. 5, May 2023
    • May 1, 2023
    ...program was unpopular with many return preparers, and a group of them sued the IRS in district court over the program. In Loving, 917 F. Supp. 2d 67 (D.D.C. 2013), the district court invalidated the IRS's credentialing requirement. The D.C. Circuit affirmed {Loving, 742 F3d 1013 (D.C. Cir. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT