About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2015 Pepp. L. Rev. Ann. 1 (2015)

handle is hein.journals/pnelwrwan2015 and id is 1 raw text is: Vol. 2015 Foreword-King v. Burwell Symposium PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW Foreword-King v. Burwell Symposium: Comments on the Commentaries (and on Some Elephants in the Room) David Gamage When the Editors of the Pepperdine Law Review asked me to pen a response commentary to the essays submitted for their symposium on the King v. Burwell case, I agreed only with some reluctance. As some readers of this symposium volume may already be aware, I took an academic leave during the time period extending from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2012 to accept a position at the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy. The portfolio of my Treasury position included the Regulations for Internal Revenue Code § 36B (Section 36B)-the Regulations that were being challenged in the King v. Burwell' case. I must thus clarify at the outset that nothing I write in this response commentary should be taken as indicative of the views of the Treasury Department, the Obama Administration, or anyone other than myself. The thrust of my response commentary will be to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. The essays submitted for this symposium volume largely concentrate on the implications of the King v. Burwell decision for the future of Chevron deference, both in tax and non-tax contexts. Accordingly, Professor Johnson's essay argues that Chevron deference is now receding in tax' and that, more generally, we are now seeing the Chevron doctrine's fall in tax and elsewhere; a fall in substantive significance, although perhaps not frequency of citation.3 Professor Johnson argues persuasively, yet some of the other submitted essays express greater uncertainty about the implications of the King v. Burwell decision for the future of Chevron deference. For instance, 1. 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015). 2. Steve R. Johnson, The Rise and Fall of Chevron in Tax: From the Early Days to King and Beyond, 2015 PEPP. L. REV. 19 (2015). 3. Id. at 26. 1

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most