On this episode of the JofA podcast, Melanie Lauridsen, vice president–Tax Policy & Advocacy for the AICPA, explains some of the tax-related repercussions of recent Supreme Court decisions. One case could have a dramatic effect on future rulemaking, and the other could have a decades-long retroactive effect.

On June 28, the Supreme Court overturned its decision in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), holding that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts to exercise their independent judgment in determining the meaning of statutory provisions, and courts may not defer to an agency's interpretation of the law just because a statute is ambiguous (Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, No. 22-451 (6/28/24)).

On July 1, the Supreme Court decision expanded the time frame to sue federal agencies, holding that the six-year statute of limitation for lawsuits challenging regulations does not start to run until a plaintiff is injured by final agency action (Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, No. 22-1008 (7/1/24)).

What you’ll learn from this episode:

·         Background on the Loper Bright and Corner Post decisions.

·         Why Lauridsen said that one of the rulings was unexpected.

·         Why Sec. 6045 broker regulations could now be “vulnerable.”

·         The reasons that, according to Lauridsen, the Loper Bright decision will not likely affect beneficial ownership information reporting requirements.

·         How legislators on Capitol Hill have reacted to the decisions.