Senate panel leaders back Obama nominees for Tax Court

WASHINGTON Tue Dec 11, 2012 8:55pm EST

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The head of the Senate's tax-writing committee on Tuesday urged the panel approve two of President Barack Obama's nominees to be judges at the U.S. Tax Court, and the panel's top Republican called them "very qualified."

Democratic Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, of Montana, said both nominees - Ronald Buch and Albert Lauber - have considerable experience in tax law. The senior Republican, Orrin Hatch of Utah, said in a statement the nominees "seem very qualified to serve."

Buch is a partner at law firm Bingham McCutchen LLP and has represented multinational companies in tax controversy disputes. Lauber is a professor at Georgetown Law School and previously worked at law firm Caplin & Drysdale.

A committee vote on the nominees, who were named by Obama in 2011, has not been scheduled. If approved at that level, the nominees would then need to be confirmed by the full Senate. The president's four previous Tax Court nominees were confirmed by the Senate.

About 90 percent of all Internal Revenue Service tax deficiency cases - in which the government says a taxpayer owes the government money - go through the Tax Court.

(Reporting by Patrick Temple-West; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Jackie Frank)

FILED UNDER:
We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
xyz2055 wrote:
All lawyers belong to the universal firm of Dewey, Cheatham and Howell. You show me a couple breaking up and I’ll show you a flock of lawyers doing “lazy circles” overhead. By the time the lawyers in the Madoff case get done, they will get 90% of the recovered money and the investors will get…..the shaft. Lawyers have created such memorable phases as…”MacDonald’s Hot” and “The bike wasn’t made right”. Precedent simply means that somewhere along the way one lawyer got another lawyer (judge) to accept an asinine argument.
What’s the difference between a tornado and a divorce in the deep south….nothing! Because either way somebody’s losing a trailer.

Dec 12, 2012 6:49am EST  --  Report as abuse
USAPragmatist wrote:
@xyz2055, normally I agree with you posts, but not all lawyers are bad. Yes, like any industry, you have your bad apples. But do not jump to the conclusion that they are all bad, they serve a very important task, standing up for those that have been wronged who would have no other course of action. A good advocate is taking a huge risk by helping people get judgments in their favor, they do not get paid if lose. But the defense attorney in civil suits ALWAYS get paid.

And with respect to the case against McDonald’s, while at it’s surface seems ridiculous, if you look at details of case you will see that the injured person had a VERY valid claim. Two facts that came out in the case, Mikey D’s knew that they where serving their coffee at an unacceptably high temperature, because they had internal studies that said their coffee tasted bad unless served at these extremely high temperatures and they figured they would lose more by lowering the temperature then they would pay out in future suits (probably ended up being right). Also the person suing had irreparable damage done to their genitals.

Dec 12, 2012 5:54pm EST  --  Report as abuse
xyz2055 wrote:
USAPragmatist..it was my feeble attempt (apparently) to be funny. I wasn’t serious.

Dec 12, 2012 6:05pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.