State Administrative Procedure Acts require Departments of Revenue to follow detailed and strict procedural rules before adopting regulations. Instead of adopting a regulation pursuant to the formal APA rulemaking process, many state DORs instead issue informal “guidance” such as notices, memos, bulletins and the like. This begs the question: at what point does this informal guidance cross the line and require a state DOR to follow APA rulemaking procedure in order to enforce the guidance? Using recent caselaw as examples, this session will explore where to draw that line.
Speakers:
Moderator: David Hughes – Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton
Jamie Szal – Brann & Isaacson
Matthew Schaefer – Schaefer Law
Nancy Prosser – Multistate Tax Commission
Learning Objectives:
After attending the session, a participant will:
• Learn about the requirement of state Administrative Procedure Acts
• Understand when a state department of revenue is required to follow formal rule making procedure
• Learn about cases where a state department of revenue improperly failed to follow formal rule making procedure
• Hear about the challenges faced by states in following formal rule making procedure
Register here.
Event Details
Friday, May 3, 2024
Marriott Marquis Washington, DC
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.