Google Podcasts - Administrative Static

Administrative Static Podcast

4 days ago

Constitutionality of ALJs; Tax Season

Constitutionality of ALJs NCLA filed an amicus brief in Fleming, et al. v. USDA, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Lucia v. SEC and taking issue with the USDA's use of Administrative Law Judges (“ALJs”) who violate Article II and the separation of powers. No statute, law, or court precedent compelled the decision. Longstanding precedent requires courts to fulfill their “unflagging” duty to hear such constitutional challenges which protect Americans from this merciless and illogical flex of government power. On February 16th, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia filed a disappointing ruling —leaving Mr. Fleming in a legal limbo where his constitutional separation-of-powers claim cannot be heard by a real Article III judge. The Fleming case contested the USDA's use of ALJs in a way that violates Article II of the U.S. Constitution. In this episode, Mark discusses the D.C. Circuit's decision in Fleming, et al. v. USDA. Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/amicus-brief-fleming-et-al-v-united-states-department-of-agriculture/ Tax Season Later in the episode, Vec describes Ali Taha's battle against the IRS and the problems with Brand X deference by the Courts. During Fiscal Year 2019 the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) processed approximately 253 million tax returns and other forms. But if the case of NCLA client Ali M. Taha is any indication, there is no guarantee that the IRS will acknowledge receipt of your tax return or tax-refund claim, and you might just end up in court trying to get your money back. Mr. Mohamad E. Taha and Ms. Sanaa M. Yassin, filed a claim seeking refund of taxes overpaid in 2002, 2003, and 2004, but the IRS asserts it never received the filing. The CFC conducted a trial on the question of whether Mr. Ali Taha had mailed the tax-refund claim to IRS. The court concluded that Mr. Taha’s testimony was credible and that he had indeed mailed the tax-refund claim. However, IRS argued that an amended 2011 regulation prohibits witness testimony on the timely-mailing question and instead only recognizes certified or registered mail receipts as adequate proof of mailing. The regulation conflicts with the applicable statute, which several courts have read to allow witness testimony on this very question. Moreover, the regulation contradicts the centuries-old common law “mailbox rule” that allows such testimony. A canon of statutory construction called the common law presumption canon forbids construing statutory silence to override the common law. Read more here: https://nclalegal.org/ali-m-taha-on-behalf-of-his-deceased-brother-and-his-brothers-wife-v-united-states/ See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

25 min