Section 122 tariffs have now been challenged in the Court of International Trade. What happens next—and how might Learning Resources v. Trump shape the litigation? Some thoughts over at TaxProf Blog:
taxprofblog.aals.org/2026/03/11/s...
New on TaxProf Blog. In Learning Resources, the Court held that tariffs are not simply instruments of commerce regulation—they are exercises of Congress’s distinct Article I taxing power. Beyond the tariff question, that distinction matters for how we think about delegation. bit.ly/46q25xr
It's also worth noting that the way this statute is drafted would not allow a U.S. citizen born in Puerto Rico to prove their citizenship with a birth certificate (since only states, local instrumentalities thereof, and tribal governments issuing birth certificates are covered).
One somewhat ironic aspect of citizenship requirement of the (Republican-drafted) SAVE America Act is that one of the ways that one can prove their citizenship is by producing a birth certificate. But according to the Trump administration, being born in the United States isn't enough!
Last week, the Fifth Circuit, in an opinion written by Judge Oldham, overturned the Tax Court in a case of statutory interpretation. I have a few initial reflections on TaxProf Blog here: taxprofblog.aals.org/2026/01/21/r...
Interestingly, I think the statute itself still only requires a concurrent resolution, not a joint resolution. See 50 U.S.C. § 1706(b). But this is @joshchafetz.bsky.social's bailiwick: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
This, plus a similar vote in the House (if it ever comes back into session), would have been sufficient under IEEPA as it was enacted in 1977 to get rid of the Brazil tariffs. Thanks to INS v. Chadha, though, this is now subject to a presidential veto. (I'm doubtful that's in the cards!)
Check out @jonendean.bsky.social's timely article on delegation and the taxing power. Jon argues against delegation to the Executive Branch under the IEEPA, which the Supreme Court is considering at oral arguments on November 5.
#Tax #TaxLaw #TaxPolicy #TaxTwitter
TaxProf Blog: bit.ly/3JrBFTo
This is standard. The agency will issue a proposed rule/regulation, but it typically takes a few days for it to be placed into the Federal Register, but it's when they're put into the Federal Register that they become effective. Here's another example:
So is the platinum card, which supposedly allows foreigners to not pay tax on their foreign income *and* stay up to 270 days in the United States. But once you hit 183 days, the tax code automatically treats you as a U.S. person, thereby subjecting you to U.S. tax on your worldwide income!
With the Fed. Circ. ruling yesterday that Trump's IEEPA taxes are unlawful, I figured now is a good time to post my article, forthcoming in the San Diego Law Review, "Tariffs as Taxes: A Framework for Understanding Delegations of the Taxing Power." Comments welcome!
papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers....
Federal Circuit affirms, per curiam, the CIT—"Because . . . IEEPA’s grant of presidential authority to 'regulate' imports does not authorize the tariffs imposed by the Executive Orders, we affirm." Decision is 7–4. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Export taxes, you say? I'm not sure they care, but perhaps they should double check Article I, Section 9, Clause 5: "No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state."
Nice to see both of my alma maters (undergrad + law school) sign on to this amicus brief.
Yup! I imagine that this will become a regular feature of litigation moving forward.
Judge Contreras required a nominal bond from the plaintiffs in the D.D.C. IEEPA challenge case as well (presumably for this reason): www.courtlistener.com/docket/69927...
What's the case name for this one?
Recognizing that § 501(c)(3) doesn't list the environment, I'm wondering whether you think § 170(h) essentially acts as a statutory ratification of environmental concerns as being encompassed in "charitable"?
Time for newfound appreciation for the Uniformity Clause, perhaps!
Writing a paper on this now, but there's an exception to the TAIA where the imposition of the tax is a legal impossibility. I'd argue that's the case here, since the IEEPA doesn't authorize tariffs/taxes. But this probably gets litigated through the CIT / Federal Circuit.
Yup. And here I thought I was going to get a nice diversion from the real world!
This note in @christianitytoday.com has a bit a of a personal angle for me—David E. Kucharsky was my grandfather. A man who exemplified a "a life well-lived" and whose legacy is one to which I am a beneficiary.
Removal makes sense. Seems like the dismissal might be a closer question—if there is no legal basis to detaining a green card holder, do those officers satisfy the test for Supremacy Clause immunity? (I am far from an expert in this area, though.)
Kidnapping is a crime under New York State law, no (and therefore not pardonable)? They might offer a federal defense (some sort of immunity), and obviously kidnapping across state lines is a federal crime, but is there a reason I'm missing why the Manhattan DA couldn't bring charges here?
The current endowment tax (IRC § 4968) carves out public universities (so UT & Texas A&M unaffected). Some new proposals (e.g., Tom Cotton's WEST Act) also add an additional carve-out for religious institutions (that carve-out is really only for Notre Dame).
