TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW
The IRS acknowledged that some microcaptive insurance transactions were not abusive but claimed a lack of sufficient information to discern which such transactions were abusive and which were not. Because micro-captive insurance transactions are now reportable transactions, material advisors who ass...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases 2020-11, Vol.48 (3), p.24-29 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 29 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 24 |
| container_title | Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases |
| container_volume | 48 |
| creator | Hickman, Kristin E Kerska, Gerald |
| description | The IRS acknowledged that some microcaptive insurance transactions were not abusive but claimed a lack of sufficient information to discern which such transactions were abusive and which were not. Because micro-captive insurance transactions are now reportable transactions, material advisors who assist and advise taxpayers with respect to such transactions must maintain certain records and report certain information about their clients to the IRS. [...]CIC Services contends that the defendants violated the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit certain rules and regulations to Congress for its review before they become effective. [...]because CIC Services' challenge would at least temporarily nullify a potential tax if successful, the majority agreed with the district court that the AIA bars CIC Services' suit from moving forward. [...]Judge Amul Thapar dissented on behalf of himself and six others. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_reports_2791683160</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2791683160</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_reports_27916831603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDYz1jUwMLHgYOAqLs4yMDA1NDQz4WSQCnGMUHD0c1FwdPH19PMMDglyDPEMc1XwcQznYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxRuaWhmYWxoZmBsZEKQIA87Imvg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2791683160</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW</title><source>HeinOnline Law Journal Library</source><creator>Hickman, Kristin E ; Kerska, Gerald</creator><creatorcontrib>Hickman, Kristin E ; Kerska, Gerald</creatorcontrib><description>The IRS acknowledged that some microcaptive insurance transactions were not abusive but claimed a lack of sufficient information to discern which such transactions were abusive and which were not. Because micro-captive insurance transactions are now reportable transactions, material advisors who assist and advise taxpayers with respect to such transactions must maintain certain records and report certain information about their clients to the IRS. [...]CIC Services contends that the defendants violated the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit certain rules and regulations to Congress for its review before they become effective. [...]because CIC Services' challenge would at least temporarily nullify a potential tax if successful, the majority agreed with the district court that the AIA bars CIC Services' suit from moving forward. [...]Judge Amul Thapar dissented on behalf of himself and six others.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0363-0048</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chicago: American Bar Association</publisher><subject>Administrative law ; Advisors ; Captive insurance ; Consulting firms ; Direct marketing ; Enforcement ; Federal court decisions ; Fines & penalties ; Judges & magistrates ; Judicial reviews ; Noncompliance ; State court decisions ; State taxes ; Supreme Court decisions</subject><ispartof>Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, 2020-11, Vol.48 (3), p.24-29</ispartof><rights>Copyright American Bar Association Nov 30, 2020</rights><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>312,780,784,791</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hickman, Kristin E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerska, Gerald</creatorcontrib><title>TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW</title><title>Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases</title><description>The IRS acknowledged that some microcaptive insurance transactions were not abusive but claimed a lack of sufficient information to discern which such transactions were abusive and which were not. Because micro-captive insurance transactions are now reportable transactions, material advisors who assist and advise taxpayers with respect to such transactions must maintain certain records and report certain information about their clients to the IRS. [...]CIC Services contends that the defendants violated the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit certain rules and regulations to Congress for its review before they become effective. [...]because CIC Services' challenge would at least temporarily nullify a potential tax if successful, the majority agreed with the district court that the AIA bars CIC Services' suit from moving forward. [...]Judge Amul Thapar dissented on behalf of himself and six others.</description><subject>Administrative law</subject><subject>Advisors</subject><subject>Captive insurance</subject><subject>Consulting firms</subject><subject>Direct marketing</subject><subject>Enforcement</subject><subject>Federal court decisions</subject><subject>Fines & penalties</subject><subject>Judges & magistrates</subject><subject>Judicial reviews</subject><subject>Noncompliance</subject><subject>State court decisions</subject><subject>State taxes</subject><subject>Supreme Court decisions</subject><issn>0363-0048</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDYz1jUwMLHgYOAqLs4yMDA1NDQz4WSQCnGMUHD0c1FwdPH19PMMDglyDPEMc1XwcQznYWBNS8wpTuWF0twMSm6uIc4eugVF-YWlqcUl8UWpBflFJcXxRuaWhmYWxoZmBsZEKQIA87Imvg</recordid><startdate>20201130</startdate><enddate>20201130</enddate><creator>Hickman, Kristin E</creator><creator>Kerska, Gerald</creator><general>American Bar Association</general><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8AM</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGRYB</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DPSOV</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>K7.</scope><scope>KC-</scope><scope>M0O</scope><scope>M2L</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20201130</creationdate><title>TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW</title><author>Hickman, Kristin E ; Kerska, Gerald</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_reports_27916831603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Administrative law</topic><topic>Advisors</topic><topic>Captive insurance</topic><topic>Consulting firms</topic><topic>Direct marketing</topic><topic>Enforcement</topic><topic>Federal court decisions</topic><topic>Fines & penalties</topic><topic>Judges & magistrates</topic><topic>Judicial reviews</topic><topic>Noncompliance</topic><topic>State court decisions</topic><topic>State taxes</topic><topic>Supreme Court decisions</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hickman, Kristin E</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kerska, Gerald</creatorcontrib><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Criminology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Politics Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ProQuest Criminal Justice (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Politics Collection</collection><collection>Criminal Justice Database</collection><collection>Political Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hickman, Kristin E</au><au>Kerska, Gerald</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW</atitle><jtitle>Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases</jtitle><date>2020-11-30</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>48</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>24</spage><epage>29</epage><pages>24-29</pages><issn>0363-0048</issn><abstract>The IRS acknowledged that some microcaptive insurance transactions were not abusive but claimed a lack of sufficient information to discern which such transactions were abusive and which were not. Because micro-captive insurance transactions are now reportable transactions, material advisors who assist and advise taxpayers with respect to such transactions must maintain certain records and report certain information about their clients to the IRS. [...]CIC Services contends that the defendants violated the Congressional Review Act, which requires agencies to submit certain rules and regulations to Congress for its review before they become effective. [...]because CIC Services' challenge would at least temporarily nullify a potential tax if successful, the majority agreed with the district court that the AIA bars CIC Services' suit from moving forward. [...]Judge Amul Thapar dissented on behalf of himself and six others.</abstract><cop>Chicago</cop><pub>American Bar Association</pub></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0363-0048 |
| ispartof | Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases, 2020-11, Vol.48 (3), p.24-29 |
| issn | 0363-0048 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_reports_2791683160 |
| source | HeinOnline Law Journal Library |
| subjects | Administrative law Advisors Captive insurance Consulting firms Direct marketing Enforcement Federal court decisions Fines & penalties Judges & magistrates Judicial reviews Noncompliance State court decisions State taxes Supreme Court decisions |
| title | TAX AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-09T07%3A22%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=TAX%20AND%20ADMINISTRATIVE%20LAW&rft.jtitle=Preview%20of%20United%20States%20Supreme%20Court%20Cases&rft.au=Hickman,%20Kristin%20E&rft.date=2020-11-30&rft.volume=48&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=24&rft.epage=29&rft.pages=24-29&rft.issn=0363-0048&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E2791683160%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2791683160&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |