close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Nearly 15 percent of Fenwick partners named America's Leading Lawyers for Business by Chambers USA and Chambers Global
  • Selected as a "Go-To" law firm by in-house legal departments at Fortune 500 companies in Corporate Counsel magazine
  • Named to The National Law Journal's inaugural "Intellectual Property Hot List" for outstanding patent, copyright, trademark and IP litigation services

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
12th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

Shanghai Office
36/F, Room 3690, Tower 2
Shanghai IFC
8 Century Avenue, Pudong
Shanghai 200120, China
+86 21 6062 6104

PUBLICATION DETAILS

Court Strikes Down IRS Tax Return Preparer Regulations

January 22, 2013

In Loving v. IRS, Civ. A. No. 12-385 (D.D.C. 2013), the District Court for the District of Columbia struck down the IRS's 2011 tax return preparer regulations (T.D. 9527, 2011-2 C.B. 1 (Jun. 3, 2011)). The regulations require non-attorney, non-CPA tax return preparers to pass a qualifying exam, pay an annual application fee, and take 15 hours of continuing education courses each year. The court analyzed the regulations under the familiar 2-step Chevron test, concluding at Step 1 that the statutory text and context of 31 U.S.C. § 330 unambiguously foreclosed the IRS's interpretation that the statute authorized the preparer regulations.

The IRS attempted to draw its authority from § 330(a)(1), which authorizes the Secretary to "regulate the practice of representatives" before the Treasury Department. The IRS argued that this authority includes the authority to regulate tax return preparers, since they are "representatives" who "practice" before the IRS. The IRS noted that the statute does not define the term "practice" or "representatives," and both terms can have broad meanings.

The court rejected the IRS argument as "simplistic." The court looked to the context in which these terms appear in other sections of the statute, noting that under § 330(a)(2)(D), before admitting a "representative" to "practice," the Secretary may require that the representative demonstrate competency "to advise and assist persons in presenting their cases." By equating "practice" with the presentation of "cases," the court stated, the statute strongly suggests that "practice" does not include the filing of tax returns. Filing a tax return would never in normal usage be described as "presenting a case."

The court also drew guidance from several Internal Revenue Code sections imposing penalties on tax return preparers. "It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction," stated the court, "that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme." Sections 6694, 6695, 6713, and 7216 each impose specific fines and penalties for specifically identified misconduct by return preparers. If one accepted the IRS's interpretation, 31 U.S.C. § 330(b) would give the IRS far broader discretion to impose virtually any penalty it chose on return preparers, trampling the detailed and specific penalty scheme enacted by Congress.

For these reasons, the court held that the statutory text and context unambigously foreclosed the IRS's interpretation. It granted the taxpayers' motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the IRS from enforcing the return preparer regulations.

Loving provides helpful reassurance that the IRS's authority to issue regulations, while broad, is still constrained by the statutes that Congress enacts. Courts will review the statutory context in which a particular term appears before concluding that the term is "ambiguous" and that the IRS is authorized to issue regulations defining the term.

The Loving case is available on the District Court's website.

Related Content