The End of Chevron Deference: Implications for Courts, Taxpayers, and Policymakers

ll courts issue rules of procedure that instruct prospective litigants in every phase of a case, from the initial filing through discovery and trial to the decision, and even what will be included in the record on appeal. In the recent case of Ballard v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 125 S.Ct. 1270 (2005), by a 7-2 vote, with an opinion by Justice Ginsburg, the United States Supreme Court upheld the perhaps novel concept that courts, in this case the United States Tax Court, must follow, and adhere to, their own promulgated rules. The United States Tax Court has a powerful influence on tax policy; it is one of three forums, along with the United States District Court and the United States Court of Federal Claims, where taxpayers may contest an assessment by the Internal Revenue Service. Because no prepayment of the assessment is required for someone to proceed in the tax court, significantly more cases are filed there than in either of the other courts. The tax court consists of nineteen full-time judges, appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, for a fixed term of fifteen years. The chief judge of the tax court has the authority to appoint special judges to deal with any matter pending before the tax court “in accordance with these Rules and such directions as may be prescribed by the Chief Judge” (Tax Court Rule 180). In cases involving assessments exceeding $50,000, the special judge tries the case and then submits a report to a regular tax court judge, who has the authority to adopt the special trial judge’s report, or the tax court judge may “modify it or may reject it in whole or in part,” with “due regard given to the circumstance that the Special Trial Judge had the opportunity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses, and the findings of fact recommended by the Special Trial Judge shall be presumed to be correct” (Tax Court Rule 183 (c)). The final opinion issued by the regular tax court judge is a collaborative second report, which is “agreed to and adopted” as the opinion of the tax court. Through the year 1983, a report by a special judge was made public and was included in the record on appeal. This allowed litigants to see why and how the regular judge’s ruling may have differed from that initial opinion. Since 1983, however, the special judge’s opinion has been withheld from the litigants, and the public, and excluded from the record on appeal. Although the regular tax court judge overseeing A

Considerable scholarly attention has been paid to litigation and its influence on social and bureaucratic policy. One area of research has focused on interest group litigation. Another area of scholarship has shown that Congress encourages individual use of the courts to monitor and control bureaucratic behavior. In several areas of law, litigants have a choice of forum by deliberate legislative design, which is sometimes derided as “forum shopping.” Little attention has been paid to the dominant national political coalition's ability to encourage forum shopping through legislation and the appointment process. One area of law that the coalition can encourage forum shopping is in challenging tax audits. It can do so through implict legislative signals and the appointment process to influence litigants to sue the Internal Revenue Service in the forum that offers the litigant the greatest chance of success. Given the prominent role of courts in setting and determining policy and given the particular prominence of taxes and tax policy over the past three decades, whether and where tax litigants choose to sue is critically important to understanding the dynamics of both tax policy and tax enforcement, as well as public policy creation and change. To demonstrate the influence of political forces on tax forum choice, I compare tax and district court filings from 1994 through to 2000. I find that as the Tax Court and national political coalition become more conservative, more taxpayers sue in the Tax Court and this “forum shopping” choice is supported by the national political coalition.

The Death of Tax Court Exceptionalism

This article examines the legal basis and authority of the Tax Court in rejecting applications for judicial review (peninjauan kembali “PK”) in Indonesian tax dispute proceedings. Under Indonesia’s current tax court procedure, a PK is an extraordinary legal remedy filed to the Supreme Court through the Tax Court. The Tax Court’s role is not only to forward the case files to the Supreme Court but also to ensure that formal requirements are fulfilled. Applicable law (Law No. 14 of 2002 on Tax Court) limits PK applications to one filing and within a strict deadline. The Tax Court is empowered to refuse or return a PK application that does not meet these legal conditions – for example, if the application is a prohibited second PK, filed past the 3-month time limit, or missing required documents. This authority is grounded in statutory provisions, Supreme Court regulations, and the Tax Court’s own rules. Through normative juridical analysis, this article finds that the Tax Court’s refusal of non-compliant PK applications is legally justified as a gatekeeping function to uphold procedural law and ensure judicial efficiency. The conclusions highlight that the Tax Court’s limited authority in this context aligns with its duty to enforce formal requirements, while the substantive examination of tax disputes via PK remains the prerogative of the Supreme Court.

The subject of the study is the concept of taxpayer integrity in the US law enforcement practice, in particular, the approach of the US tax authorities and the US Tax Court in applying this concept when considering tax disputes. When considering this issue, it was revealed that the signs of the taxpayer's integrity are fixed in the US Internal Revenue Code in Article 1.6664-4. In accordance with the provisions of this article, no fine may be imposed in accordance with section 6662 in respect of any part of the underpayment if the taxpayer proves that there was a reasonable reason for such part and that the taxpayer acted in good faith. В В В The main conclusion of the study is that the existence of a legal norm defining the signs of a taxpayer's good faith in the US tax legislation allows taxpayers to avoid a fine in case of incomplete fulfillment of tax obligations by providing a reasonable reasonable reason. In addition, we can conclude that when determining the legality of accepting expenses for the purpose of reducing the income tax base, the US Tax Court takes into account the nature of the appearance of these expenses (case Neonatology Assocs., P.A. v. Commissioner - 115 T.C. 43, 99 (2000), aff'd, 299 F 3d 221 (3d Cir. 2002))

Pursuant to Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia (1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia) it is stated that judicial power is exercised by a Supreme Court and judicial bodies under it within the realm of general courts, religious courts, military courts, state administrative courts and by a Constitutional Court. Based on Article 1 number 8 of Law Number 48 of 2009 Concerning Judicial Power (UU 48/2009) there is a special court that has the authority to examine and hear and decide on certain cases which can only be formed within one of the judicial bodies under the Supreme Court. regulated in laws and regulations. The limitation of judicial institutions as stipulated in Article 24 paragraph (2) of the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia does not allow for judicial institutions that are not within the scope of the Supreme Court and/or the Constitutional Court. However, there is a judicial institution, namely the Tax Court as stipulated in Article 2 of Law Number 14 of 2002 concerning the Tax Court (UU 14/2002), which is a judicial body that exercises judicial power for taxpayers seeking justice in tax disputes. Regarding the Tax Court, the guidance is carried out by the Supreme Court and the Ministry of Finance. This makes the tax court not completely independent as a judicial institution in general that carries out a judicial function (there is still interference from the executive branch, namely the ministry of finance), plus that the Supreme Court, in order to be able to fully supervise the tax court both technically and administratively, the tax court should be under the judicial institutions under the Supreme Court. This research is a normative juridical research using statutory and conceptual approaches with the aim of finding an ideal arrangement regarding the institutional structure of the tax court in Indonesia

An Empirical Study of Statutory Interpretation in Tax Law

Currently, the United States has three judicial instances that are authorizes to contest the fact of bringing to responsibility for violation of tax legislation: Tax Court, Court of Claim, and district courts. The United States Tax Court is the most demanded authority among taxpayers that adjudicates over 95% of all tax disputes, which is substantiated by the fact that it is the only instance where a taxpayer can apply prior to paying taxes, penalties and fines. This article using the general scientific and special legal methods examines the previously uncovered in Russian legal literature peculiarities of adjudication of tax disputes by the United States Tax Court. Including the questions of formation of precedents in tax cases. As a result of the conducted research the author formulates the following conclusions: 1) a mandatory conditions of jurisdiction of the Tax Court is the notification on uncollected tax; if it is absent, the tax payer cannot appeal to the Tax Court; 2) only a small number of cases is considered by the Tax Court substantively, namely due to the fact that the parties listen to the verbal opinion of the judge, based on which formulate the settlement offer and submit for approval of the judge; 3) the opinion and decisions of the Tax Court should be differentiated, only certain categories of opinions are of precedent nature; 4) since the decisions of the Tax Court are subject to appeal to the thirteen Courts of Appeal, potentially there occurs a problem related to controversial case law on the same issues; 5) cases with an insignificant sum in dispute qualify under simplified procedure, which contributes to procedural efficiency; however, the opinion formed based on the results of such consideration would not be of precedential value.

Based on MK decision Number 26/PUU-XXI/2023, the Constitutional Court (MK) has determined that the Tax Court Institution, which was formerly under the Ministry of Finance, will henceforth be under the Supreme Court (MA) no later than December 31, 2026. In accordance with Tax Court Law Number 14 of 2002, the purpose of this study is to locate and evaluate tax court rulings with the goal of enhancing tax compliance. A qualitative technique is employed in the research methodology, together with a literature review analysis of research findings and tax laws pertaining to court rulings and tax compliance. The findings demonstrate how judicial rulings support tax justice. Taxpayers have great faith in the Tax Court to settle their tax disputes. It is hoped that by consolidating the Tax Court under the Supreme Court, the Tax Court will play a larger role in resolving tax disputes and offering justice.

The problematic legal arrangement of the tax court as stipulated in Article 5 paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Law number 14 Year 2002 on Tax Court, paragraph (1) "Technical judicial guidance for the Tax Court is carried out by the Supreme Court and paragraph (2) Organisational, administrative, and financial guidance for the Tax Court is carried out by the Ministry of Finance (now Ministry of Finance). This is certainly different from the independent judicial system or what is known as the "one roof system" in Law number 48 of 2009 concerning Judicial Power. This research uses a juridical-normative legal research method. The Juridical-Normative approach uses methods and techniques through a statute approach, case approach to examine the separation of powers and checks and balances of two power institutions, which attributively regulate the position of the Tax Court with the Tax Court Law and the Judicial Power Law and examine the Constitutional Court's decision relating to the discussion of the legal issues studied. The results of an in-depth study of the legal politics of the establishment of the Tax Court Law, should be directed at efforts to establish an independent judicial system "one roof system" and the Constitutional Court's decision to grant and declare Article 8 paragraph (2), Article 8 paragraph (3) and Article 13 paragraph (1) of the Tax Court Law does not have binding legal force, in maintaining the spirit of independent judicial power so that the court does not become an instrument of power (machtsapparaat), but becomes an instrument of law (rechtsapparaat), it is necessary to revise the Tax Court Law as part of improving the separation of powers and cheks and balances.Keywords: Legal Politics, Tax Court, Separation of Powers, checks and balances

Tax Policy and the News: An Empirical Analysis of Taxpayerss Perceptions of Taxrelated Media Coverage and its Impact on Tax Compliance

This study examined the tax knowledge and behaviour of individual taxpayers in South Africa in light of the crucial link between understanding tax principles and compliance with tax regulations. Individuals’ compliance with tax laws is vital for economic development, with their contributions forming a significant part of overall tax revenue. The study employed a scoping review research methodology, offering a comprehensive analysis of the existing literature within the specified research domain. Secondary data from reputable sources such as ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, ResearchGate, Google, and published reports contributed to the study's foundation. The observation period spanned 2000 to 2023, encapsulating significant developments in the South African tax system, including the introduction of E-filing, changes in tax legislation, and adjustments to the tax rates for individuals. The study highlights that individuals exhibiting a positive attitude towards tax regulations and possessing a robust understanding of tax principles are more likely to comply with tax requirements. Tax knowledge encompasses awareness, comprehension, and familiarity with tax laws, policies, and regulations. It extends to the ability to apply tax laws to specific situations, make informed decisions regarding tax matters, and accurately compute individual tax assessments. The study underscores the critical role of tax knowledge in influencing compliance behaviour among individual taxpayers, providing valuable insights for policymakers and the tax authorities in shaping effective tax policies.

This chapter presents a broad overview of the dynamics of the coexistence of a Member State – the Slovak Republic – and the European Union (EU), which share competencies in the area of taxation. From the perspective of the Slovak Republic, this chapter examines the general concept of state sovereignty; further, it explores how the Slovak Republic’s sovereignty is affected by its membership in the EU, especially in light of new tax legislation. Conferring part of its sovereignty to the EU, the Slovak Republic applies the monistic principle of regulating the relationship between EU law and national law and prioritizes EU law over its own. Notably, this chapter also explores the EU’s direct legislative competences in tax matters and its visions and efforts in the sphere of direct taxation, where its legislative position differs from that for indirect taxes. In this regard, Slovakia can be seen as a supporter of EU legislative actions that lead to a more cooperative approach towards common European problems; however, not all initiatives were perceived as beneficial for the Slovak Republic – some may hold risks for the state’s economy. Given that a Member State’s sovereignty and tax competence are closely connected to tax competition, this chapter also considers this topic; in particular, this chapter explores why Slovakia did not positively receive some of the EU’s proposals, particularly the Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base (CCCTB). Subsequently, this chapter turns to the Slovak Republic’s overall policy and particular measures in the fight against tax evasion in light of its attitude towards EU. This area is of special importance for the Slovak Republic. In the last decade, the Slovak Republic has introduced action plans for fighting tax evasion and tax fraud and many related individual measures. Further, Slovakia generally affirms the EU’s related measures as helpful in solving tax evasion. The data show that these activities are yielding positive outcomes in Slovakia, with the amount of taxes evaded generally declining.

The research departs from a fundamental problem, the dual roof system that historically placed the Tax Court under divided supervision between the judiciary and the executive, particularly the Ministry of Finance, thereby creating structural ambiguity and potential conflicts of interest between tax collection and adjudication functions. This condition raised concerns regarding the judicial independence, accountability, and public trust in tax dispute resolution. Using a normative juridical method with statutory, conceptual, and comparative approaches, this study analyses constitutional provisions, statutory regulations, and institutional practices governing the Tax Court. The research finds that, first, the reform of Indonesia’s tax adjudication system reflects a constitutional imperative to secure genuine judicial independence by ending the dual roof structure and fully integrating the Tax Court under the authority of Supreme Court, as mandated by Decision No. 26/PUU-XXI/2023 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia. Second, comparative insights from the United States and Germany demonstrate that effective judicial independence in tax matters requires structural separation from fiscal authorities, hierarchical judicial review, professional specialisation, and administrative as well as financial autonomy. Moreover, procedural differentiation, digital transparency, and layered oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent conflicts of interest and ensure accountability within a unified judicial framework. Third, as a policy model, Indonesia should adopt a fully integrated one-roof tax court system supported by tiered appellate review, institutional autonomy, specialised judicial training, and comprehensive digital governance to guarantee an independent, transparent, and accountable tax judiciary.

Background. The Tax Court, basically, has been regulated in Law Number 14 Year 2002 on Tax Court. However, there is an issue relating to the ambiguous position of the Tax Court. Purpose. The purpose of this is to show that the position of the court is not independent, as it plays a role in both judicial and executive functions, which may result in a lack of independence in case decision making. Therefore, this study aims to determine the position of the tax court in the current judicial system in Indonesia. Method. This research uses normative juridical research method by reviewing secondary data obtained. Based on the results of the research, it was found that the latest Constitutional Court Decision Number 26/PUU-XXI/2023 has determined that the Tax Courts must transfer their organizational, administrative, and financial development responsibilities to the Supreme Court before 31 December 2026. Results. The consequence of this decision is that the organizational structure of the Tax Court will be directly under the supervision of the Supreme Court and no longer under the Ministry of Finance. Although the Tax Court will be transferred to the Supreme Court, it is important to maintain this situation as the transition requires adjustments in terms of organizational structure, employee status, and career opportunities for tax judges. All of these matters must be studied and solutions found by the Tax Court as the independence of tax judges means a lot to taxpayers seeking justice in their tax disputes. Conclusion. In addition to independence, the public also expects competent expertise and knowledge from tax judges as enforcers of justice in tax disputes.