-
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
HYPOTHESES
Given the expected prevalence of ideological decision making, as well as
the differences in independence and structure, I derive several hypotheses,
which I categorize into two subgroups: independence hypotheses and spe-
cialization hypotheses.
Independence
Since tax policy, along with support or opposition to the IRS is ideological,
one would expect judges to exhibit ideological bias in their rulings. Tax
Court judges are subject to the same nomination and confi rmation process
as judges of the District Court; therefore, one should see similar ideological
rulings for both courts, regardless of their relative independence. Thus, the
first hypothesis:
Hypothesis 1: The more liberal the judge, the greater the support for
the IRS; the more conservative the judge, the greater the support
for the taxpayer.
However, tax policy and its interpretation are is complex and demand-
ing, and there are many fewer Tax Court judges and their tenure is limited.
With shorter tenure, the ideological positioning inherent in tax policy would
be more likely to manifest itself in the smaller Tax Court than in the larger
District Court where ideological change would take place at a much slower
64
GETTING A POOR RETURN
pace over a much longer time. In addition, judges of the general jurisdiction
courts need to rely more on litigants, lawyers, the IRS, and other courts for
the meaning and proper construction of the Internal Revenue Code. This
reliance on outside interpretation will restrict the use of ideology in the
rulings by the judges of the District Court. The expertise of the Tax Court
judges, and their concomitant lack of reliance on lawyers, litigants, the IRS,
or other courts, means that the Tax Court judges have greater freedom to
use their ideology in their rulings, leading to hypothesis 2:
Hypothesis 2: Ideology will have a greater infl uence in the Tax Court
than in the District Court.
Of all the issues and facts confronting the judges of both courts, the
greatest challenge to the collection of taxes comes from those who question
the very notion of the process and the right of the state to collect taxes
either through fraud, deception, or abuse. The most fl agrant challenges to
the tax collection system come from those who commit fraud, create or use
abusive tax shelters, or engage in protests against the right of the state to
assess and collect revenue. More than anything else, these assertions should
lead to signifi cant divergence between liberal and conservative judges, with
liberal judges being the most opposed to these assertions and arguments and
conservative judges being more supportive. Thus, hypothesis 3:
Hypothesis 3: The more liberal the judge, the greater the support
for the IRS when the issues concern tax protesters, tax fraud, and
tax shelters.
Specialization
Since prior research has shown that other specialized courts are less likely
to follow precedent imposed by hierarchically superior courts than courts of
general jurisdiction, there is no reason to expect the Tax Court and District
Court to behave differently; hence, hypothesis 4:
Hypothesis 4: The regional federal courts of appeals will have a greater
infl uence on the decisions of the District Court than on the decisions
of the Tax Court.
Given the expertise of the Tax Court compared to the District Court,
one should see that attorneys have a greater infl uence on District Court
judges than on Tax Court judges. District Court judges need to rely on the
presentation and arguments of legal experts more than Tax Court judges,
leading to hypothesis 5:
65
TAX DECISION MAKING
Hypothesis 5: Representation by an attorney will have a greater infl u-
ence on the District Court than on the Tax Court.
Tax Court special judges do not have the same pension and reappoint-
ment advantages as a regular judge of that court. Because of this, special
judges should show greater deference to the agency. Following prior literature,
a judge s prior IRS experience will also infl uence the decisions of special
judges and regular judges. One should expect that special judges would be
more likely to decide cases in favor of the IRS. Therefore, all Tax Court
judges with IRS experience, special or regular, will be more likely to decide
cases in favor of the IRS. Thus, hypotheses 6 and 7:
Hypothesis 6: Special judges will be more likely to decide cases in
favor of the IRS.
Hypothesis 7: Tax Court judges with IRS experience will be more
likely to decide cases in favor of the IRS.
Prior research on District Courts demonstrates the impact of local
conditions on the District Court. Because of this, the District Court deci- [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ] - zanotowane.pl
- doc.pisz.pl
- pdf.pisz.pl
- matkadziecka.xlx.pl