Call for a Consultation (602) 200-7399


Supreme Court Reins in the IRS in CIC Services v. IRS

Posted by Brandon Keim | Oct 10, 2021 | 0 Comments

In the U.S., it can often seem as if the Internal Revenue Service has nearly unlimited power. But the IRS is an executive branch agency, subject to the same limitations of all government agencies. While Congress passes laws that agencies must enforce, agencies can't unilaterally change the rules and regulations they must follow. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs the process by which agencies develop and implement regulations. See 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq. (1946). The APA requires that federal agencies issue proposed and final rules in the Federal Register, giving the public notice and the opportunity to comment on proposed regulations. In the last decade, the IRS has played fast and loose with the APA requirements, and recently, the U.S. Supreme Court called them to task. 

CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service

In CIC Services v. Internal Revenue Service, CIC brought suit against the IRS challenging Notice 2016-66, imposing substantial reporting requirements for certain insurance transactions. The IRS imposed the requirements of 2016-66 without using the rulemaking processes required by the APA. When CIC challenged this in court, the IRS used a common argument using the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) to dismiss the suit. In many situations, taxpayers must pay a tax assessment before they can challenge it in federal district court or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Alternately, the IRS must issue a notice that a taxpayer owes money before the taxpayer can initiate a suit in federal Tax Court.

The purpose of the AIA was to keep taxpayers from challenging IRS decisions in court simply to delay paying an assessment. However, the IRS also applied this standard to reporting requirements it issued, even when it failed to follow APA administrative procedures to implement those requirements. The IRS's interpretation of the AIA has left many taxpayers with no way to challenge administratively improper regulations.

The U.S. Supreme Court reined in the IRS, agreeing that this standard would leave taxpayers in a Catch-22 position, needing to pay large fines and risk jail time for failing to follow the requirements of Notice 2016-66 before they could challenge the legality of the Notice in court. In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Elana Kagan, the Supreme Court held that a suit to enjoin the requirements of Notice 2016-66 did not trigger the Anti-Injunction Act.

Ultimately, the CIC Services case will go a long way towards allowing taxpayers to validly challenge the legality of IRS regulations that haven't gone through the proper administrative process. The decision could help make the IRS more accountable to taxpayers and legislators.

Hire an Experienced Tax Attorney

If you're facing a dispute with the IRS, whether over policy or an assessment, you need the guidance of an experienced tax professional. Don't try to face the IRS on your own. If you need help, call Senior Partner, Tax Controversy Attorney, and former IRS attorney Brandon A. Keim at (602) 200-7399 or contact him online to discuss your options.

About the Author

Brandon Keim

A Certified Tax Law Specialist, CPA, partner at Frazer Ryan Goldberg & Arnold LLP, and former Senior IRS Trial Attorney, Brandon Keim holds an LL.M. in Taxation from Georgetown University Law Center.


There are no comments for this post. Be the first and Add your Comment below.

Leave a Comment


Aenean lacinia bibendum nulla sed consectetur. Donec sed odio dui. Maecenas sed diam eget risus varius blandit sit amet non magna. Nulla vitae elit libero, a pharetra augue. Curabitur blandit tempus porttitor. Morbi leo risus, porta ac consectetur ac, vestibulum at eros. Cras justo odio, dapibus ac facilisis in, egestas.

The act of visiting or communicating with Brandon A. Keim via this website or by email does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Communications from non-clients via this website are not subject to client confidentiality or attorney-client privilege. Further, the articles, discussion, commentary, forms and sample documentation contained in this website are offered as general guidance only and are not to be relied upon as specific legal advice. For legal advice on a specific matter, please consult with an attorney who is knowledgeable and experienced in that area. Attorneys listed in this website practice only in the jurisdictions in which they are admitted. This website is governed by the Arizona Rules of Professional Conduct.