U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

82–626—PDF 2012

S. HRG. 112–810 

NOMINATIONS OF ALBERT F. LAUBER 

AND RONALD LEE BUCH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON THE

NOMINATIONS OF 

ALBERT F. LAUBER, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX 

COURT; AND RONALD LEE BUCH, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED 

STATES TAX COURT 

DECEMBER 11, 2012 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

KENT CONRAD, North Dakota 

JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

RUSSELL SULLIVAN, Staff Director 

CHRIS CAMPBELL, Republican Staff Director 

(II) 

C O N T E N T S 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Page 

Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana, chairman, Committee 

on Finance ............................................................................................................ 1 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from Utah ................................................. 2 

ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES 

Lauber, Albert F., nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 4 

Buch, Ronald Lee, nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court, 

Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 5 

ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL 

Baucus, Hon. Max: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Buch, Ronald Lee: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 15 

Response to a question from Senator Hatch .................................................. 26 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.: 

Opening statement ........................................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Lauber, Albert F.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

Biographical information ................................................................................. 30 

Response to a question from Senator Hatch .................................................. 38 

(III) 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF ALBERT F. LAUBER, TO BE 

A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX 

COURT; AND RONALD LEE BUCH, TO BE A 

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT 

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON FINANCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in 

room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Max Baucus 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senator Orrin G. Hatch. 

Also present: Democratic Staff: Russ Sullivan, Staff Director; Tiffany Smith, Tax Counsel; and Rory Murphy, International Trade 

Analyst. Republican Staff: Chris Campbell, Staff Director; and 

Nicholas Wyatt, Tax and Nominations Professional Staff Member. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM MONTANA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order. 

Henry Adams, the famed writer and great-grandson of John 

Adams, once wrote, ‘‘All experience is an arch to build upon.’’ 

Before us today are two nominees with decades of experience: 

Mr. Lauber and Mr. Buch. Both of you are nominated to serve as 

judges on the U.S. Tax Court. Your experience will serve as an important arch to build upon in the positions for which you have been 

nominated. 

The Tax Court gives Americans a venue to address legitimate tax 

problems, and it helps guarantee fair administration of our tax 

laws. It is the cornerstone of our tax system. 

If confirmed to be judges, you will hear thousands of cases from 

all over the country. Each case will require your careful consideration. The President chose you to serve as judges because of the expertise you have gained during your long careers. 

Mr. Lauber, you currently serve as the director of the graduate 

tax and securities programs at the Georgetown University Law 

Center. Your career in tax law has included work in private practice and the Department of Justice. 

Mr. Buch, as an attorney with the Internal Revenue Service, you 

regularly represented the Agency before the U.S. Tax Court. Since 

then, you advised many taxpayers in the private sector on matters 

relating to tax law. You have also taught hundreds of students the 

2 

ins and outs of the tax code as a law professor at Georgetown and 

Capital University. 

I am confident that both of you will make excellent judges on the 

Tax Court, and, if confirmed, you will be challenged in your new 

positions. I believe, in Henry Adams’s words, you will build upon 

your extensive experience and find success. 

Your experience proves you are knowledgeable, that you are 

qualified, so I thank you for being here and look forward to discussing your nominations. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Baucus appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch? 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to 

the nominees before us today. As we all know, the Tax Court is a 

very important institution, and it is important that this committee 

keep its healthy functioning in mind. If both of you are confirmed, 

17 out of the 19 Tax Court judge positions will be filled. I want to 

compliment the distinguished chairman for his work in this area. 

The Tax Court is important because it is a venue where taxpayers can litigate issues without paying a disputed liability in advance. The tax code does not need to be a harness where the individual is yoked to the State, and, as an institution, the Tax Court 

helps to ensure that that remains the case. 

The two nominees before us are very qualified, seem very qualified to serve. Ronald Buch is a partner at Bingham McCutchen, 

where he has represented clients before the IRS, the Department 

of Justice, and the Federal courts. He is also an adjunct professor 

at the Georgetown University Law Center. 

Albert Lauber has also spent a significant part of his career in 

private practice at the firm of Caplin and Drysdale. Currently, he 

works as a visiting professor also at the Georgetown University 

Law Center, and he has served as Tax Assistant to the Solicitor 

General. 

Both of your backgrounds seem to suggest that you have the necessary skills and experience to serve on the Tax Court, and I hope 

that, if confirmed, you will be able to use the practical knowledge 

you have gained from your law practices to apply faithfully the tax 

laws authored by Congress and to ensure that taxpayers are treated fairly by the system of tax administration rather than being 

simply subject to it. 

I also want to briefly discuss a matter that is not directly related 

to our nominees today, but it is a matter of long-standing concern. 

During a hearing last May, I remarked that there appeared to be 

a pattern at the Treasury Department of either refusing to respond 

to Senators’ questions, or only strategically responding the night 

before the Department wanted something from this committee. 

At the time, it was referring to delayed responses to written 

questions submitted after Secretary Geithner testified before the 

committee about the President’s budget. It appears that this trend 

continues. As this hearing was coming together, my staff asked the 

Treasury Department about two information requests, one made on 

3 

September 15 and the other on October 15. After weeks of receiving 

no response and then mentioning these requests in the context of 

a nomination hearing, lo and behold, I received responses about 2 

days later. 

I, and other members of this committee, have other outstanding 

requests for information to Treasury and other Cabinet agencies. I, 

along with most of my colleagues, are determined to fulfill my constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the executive branch. 

Yet, at every turn, it appears that the administration is only willing to cooperate when there is something in it for them. When we 

are talking about confirming nominees for administrative positions, 

there seems to be a willingness to do, or promise to do, just enough 

to get a nominee confirmed. 

Likewise, officials virtually always promise to be responsive to 

requests, but far too often these promises fall by the wayside. If the 

President, Cabinet secretaries, and other officers confirmed by the 

Senate, are unable to wade through their own bureaucracy in order 

to provide timely responses to requests from Congress, then they 

ought to change their methods for processing such requests. 

On the other hand, if they are simply averse to providing answers to questions from Congress, that is a much bigger problem. 

Whether there is a process problem or whether there is an unwillingness on the part of administration officials to respond to requests, the current mechanisms for facilitating oversight are clearly not adequate. 

I look forward to continuing to work with the chairman to address this problem. As I noted, this is not directly related to the 

nominees before the committee today, so I will not take up any 

more of the committee’s time discussing the matter, but it is a matter of great concern to me, Mr. Chairman. I know it is to you as 

well. 

Now, I just want to say, finally, that for everybody here today, 

it is Senator Baucus’s birthday. So I think I want to pay tribute 

to you for living this long, especially in this hostile environment. 

[Laughter.] And I wish you another 71 years. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, aren’t you kind? Long life is somewhat attributable to being able to work with somebody who is a really good 

person, like the Senator from Utah. 

Senator HATCH. I hope I qualify. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is very kind of you. Thank you. 

I might say also, I very much agree with your last statement 

about the lack of responsiveness from Treasury. As you know, Senator, any request you make is a request from me too. 

Senator HATCH. Vice versa. 

The CHAIRMAN. And vice versa. I believe strongly that the Treasury should very efficiently expedite any requests that you might 

have of them, because I know they are legitimate and in good faith, 

and we will support you in that. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is the right thing to do. Thank you very much 

for your statement too. I appreciate that. 

Senator HATCH. You bet. 

The CHAIRMAN. And for your good wishes. 

4 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hatch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I would like, now, to introduce the panel. Both 

of today’s witnesses have been nominated to be judges on the U.S. 

Tax Court: Mr. Albert Lauber and Mr. Ronald Buch. 

As is our regular practice—you may know, but I will remind 

you—we would like you to submit your prepared statements for the 

record and then summarize them orally in any way you want. But 

try to keep your remarks to about 5 minutes. 

I would urge you to be candid here. Do not be too formal. Say 

what you think, because life is short. I just turned another year. 

You cannot take it with you; you might as well do the best you can 

right now. So, why don’t you both proceed? 

Before you do, though, I would like to have each of you, if you 

are so inclined, to introduce any friends or family who might be 

here with you, some people who are kind of proud to be part of 

your life. 

So I will start with you, Mr. Lauber. 

Mr. LAUBER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to introduce 

two members of my family, my partner of 23 years, Craig Hoffman, 

who is also a professor at Georgetown Law School—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Is he here? 

Mr. LAUBER [continuing]. And my niece, Hannah—— 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. LAUBER [continuing]. Who just finished college and is now 

also entering public service by working for the DC public schools. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, super. Why don’t you stand up so we can 

recognize you? Thank you very much. [Applause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. Buch? 

Mr. BUCH. I am thrilled that my family could be here today, my 

daughter Emma who is going to be starting college at the University of Washington; my wife Deb; my daughter Allison, a student 

at St. Stephen’s; and my parents, Ron and Hella Buch, who flew 

up from Florida for this hearing today. Also, I am surprised to see 

several colleagues and friends here as well, so I am thrilled they 

can join us today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you could all stand. All of you. Come on, 

stand up. [Applause.] 

Gosh, Mr. Buch, your family and friends constitute half of the 

audience here. [Laughter.] That is pretty good. 

Mr. Lauber, why don’t you proceed? 

STATEMENT OF ALBERT F. LAUBER, NOMINATED TO BE A 

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. LAUBER. Thank you, Chairman Baucus, Ranking Member 

Hatch, for the privilege of being here today. I am also grateful to 

President Obama for nominating me to the U.S. Tax Court. I am 

very grateful to the staff of the committee on both sides of the aisle 

for their diligent efforts to bring this to fruition at a very busy time 

for all of you here at year-end. 

I have looked at tax from many vantage points during my career. 

As a student at Yale Law School, I studied tax under Professor 

Boris Bittker and Marvin Chirelstein, who are two of the leading 

5 

figures in the history of tax law. As a law clerk, I worked on several tax opinions for Justice Harry Blackmun of the Supreme 

Court, who was one of the few Justices who actually liked tax cases 

and got quite a few of them. 

As a lawyer in the Justice Department, I worked under Rex Lee 

and Charles Fried, handling many tax appeals, and I argued 15 

cases in tax in the U.S. Supreme Court. In private practice, I spent 

20 years at Caplin and Drysdale, handling tax controversy matters. 

For the past 6 years, I have been teaching tax at Georgetown, running the graduate tax program. I have counseled about 1,000 tax 

students during my time there, and 30 of them have gone on to become Tax Court law clerks. 

So I think, through my experience, I have come to understand 

what makes a good judge, and what makes a good Tax Court judge 

in particular. If confirmed, I will endeavor to resolve disputes between taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service by applying the 

tax laws according to Congress’s intent. 

I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Lauber. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Lauber appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buch? 

STATEMENT OF RONALD LEE BUCH, NOMINATED TO BE A 

JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. BUCH. Good morning, Chairman Baucus and Ranking Member Hatch. Thank you. It is truly a privilege to be here today. I am 

certainly grateful to President Obama for having nominated me to 

be a judge of the U.S. Tax Court. Thank you for scheduling this 

hearing, and thank you to the staff members who have been generous with their time in preparing for today. 

A moment ago I introduced my family members, and I am 

thrilled that they could be here today. I suppose the purpose of a 

statement such as this is to tell you a bit about who I am. I am 

a product of the people seated behind me. My father started out as 

a stockroom manager in a Kresge store in the late 1950s and retired as executive vice president of K–Mart Corporation. 

The CHAIRMAN. One of the first cases you read in law school is 

Kresge. Mr. BUCH. That is correct. [Laughter.] 

Sebastian Spering Kresge, the founder of the company. 

The CHAIRMAN. Right. 

Mr. BUCH. He rose through the corporate ranks, not because of 

academic pedigree, but because of hard work. My mother emigrated 

to this country from Germany after she met and married my father 

when he was stationed there with the Army. 

During much of my childhood, she was not employed outside the 

home, but she worked harder than most people I have known, 

whether volunteering as a school nurse, as an AIDS counselor, as 

a substance abuse counselor at a church, at a museum. She tirelessly gave, and continues to give of herself, simply for the reward 

of having served. 

If I had to point to two key values I have learned from my parents, they would be hard work and serving something greater than 

yourself. Rightly or wrongly, I like to think of my career as having 

6 

been guided by these values. I worked for the IRS Office of Chief 

Counsel, where perhaps the greatest reward was standing before 

the U.S. Tax Court and knowing that I was representing our country. 

I have also had the pleasure of representing taxpayers in our adversarial tax system. But, in addition to representing taxpayers 

and the IRS, I have tried to serve the tax system. I have been an 

active member of the tax sections of the American Bar Association 

and the District of Columbia Bar Association, chairing committees 

of each. I have taught as an adjunct professor at Georgetown Law. 

I have been an active member in the Inns of Court, all of which 

I view as bettering our profession. 

If confirmed, I hope to continue to be guided by these values, to 

work hard and to serve our system by fairly and impartially applying the tax law. Thank you. I look forward to any questions you 

might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Buch appears in the appendix.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you both. 

I have three obligatory questions I will first ask, and I would ask 

each of you to indicate your response. 

Is there anything that you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? Mr. Lauber? 

Mr. LAUBER. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buch? 

Mr. BUCH. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know of any reason, personal or otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably 

discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. LAUBER. No, sir. 

Mr. BUCH. No, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you agree, without reservation, to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress, if you are confirmed? 

Mr. LAUBER. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BUCH. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Thank you. 

The basic question I have—I am sure it is in the minds of a lot 

of people in this room—is your thoughts about how we might reform the tax code. You all are deeply enmeshed and ensconced in 

the code in your backgrounds. We are going through this fiscal cliff 

negotiation now, at least the President and the Speaker are at this 

point, and I suspect that, probably next year, we will spend a good 

bit of our time reforming the code, both individual income tax provisions as well as the corporate provisions. 

My guess is there will probably be other measures as well: estate 

tax, for example. It is just hard to tell. So, your thoughts when you 

are thinking about the code. My gosh, why do they not do this, why 

do they not do that? Things that might come to mind just off the 

top of your head, or if you feel very firmly, very strongly, passionately about some part, some provision that should be changed, we 

would like to hear that too. But you are a resource. It is an opportunity for us to learn all we can and get the best advice we can 

7 

and do the best we can in the next year, so we probably should 

hear from you before you get on the Court. 

Mr. Lauber? 

Mr. LAUBER. Well, I think for me, and I would suspect for every 

tax professor in the country, the gold standard is the Tax Reform 

Act of 1986, which this committee is largely responsible for. That 

was the last real tax reform we have had in the country, and it was 

a wonderful example of President Reagan working with Democrats 

across the aisle to produce real, genuine tax reform, including lowering rates and simplification. That is the gold standard. 

Now, it is harder to do that today because the key to that provision was it was revenue-neutral, and there was a time when the 

tax reform could be done in a revenue-neutral way. My fear is, now 

that is not going to be possible. It is going to have to be done in 

a way that will raise some revenue. 

But that would be my, and I think most people’s, preferred path, 

to try to do it through simplification, base-broadening, closing special interest loopholes. It may not be possible to lower rates much, 

but, if that could be done in the context of reform, I think it would 

be a positive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any provisions—umbrella-type tax expenditures, any credit exclusions or deductions—that you find either heinous or questionable? 

Mr. LAUBER. Now I am answering it in my capacity as a citizen, 

not as a prospective judge. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Sure. Sure. 

Mr. LAUBER. We will of course enforce the laws the Congress has 

enacted across the board. But I think the manufacturing deduction 

in section 199 is one of the most offensive provisions in the revenue 

code. 

The CHAIRMAN. Most? 

Mr. LAUBER. Offensive. 

The CHAIRMAN. Offensive. 

Mr. LAUBER. And it does not accomplish any good. It just throws 

money at—I mean, the definition of manufacturing has become so 

gigantic that it is not just Caterpillar tractor that is benefitting 

from this, but companies you would not dream of who do not manufacture anything. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the history of it, or do you not? 

Mr. LAUBER. Pardon? 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you know the history of 199? It is a followon to FSC/ETI. 

Mr. LAUBER. Yes. Yes. Right. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. Because European countries, value-added countries, could rebate the export portion. 

Mr. LAUBER. Right. 

The CHAIRMAN. So we attempted our FSC/ETI, and that was 

ruled by WTO as not quite up to muster, so we had to find something else. I grant you that the manufacturing deduction is a poor 

substitute for what we otherwise were attempting to do, but I appreciate that. 

Mr. Buch? 

Mr. BUCH. As a controversy lawyer, I have the pleasure of dealing with the code as it is already in effect. I look at it as an 

8 

unenviable task to be placed in the position of, for example, the 

members of this committee to try to weigh the policy priorities of 

deductions that maybe have incentives included in them as weight 

against the other policy, the countervailing policy of simplifying the 

code. 

Simplification certainly makes matters easier for taxpayers, but 

then that takes away the ability of Congress to use the code for incentives. Certainly as a tax purist, simplification is always a laudable goal from my perspective. If asked about a specific area, again, 

I look at my background as a controversy lawyer. 

The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 enacted a 

set of procedural provisions that deal with partnerships that were 

extraordinarily effective and extraordinarily helpful at the time for 

streamlining partnership proceedings. I think there has been a fair 

amount of commentary out there today that those provisions add 

complication today rather than streamline things. So, that might 

be one area that I would consider looking at. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Senator Hatch? 

Senator HATCH. Well, I think both of you are very well-qualified. 

Over the course of your professional careers, you have represented 

and worked with parties that are highly sophisticated with respect 

to tax matters. As a Tax Court judge, you will find yourself presiding over many cases that involve unsophisticated taxpayers with 

few resources to deploy in their defense. What lessons do you take 

from your prior professional experience to ensure that you treat 

these taxpayers with respect and understanding, while stopping 

short of awarding them an advantage? Do you want to go first, Mr. 

Lauber? 

Mr. LAUBER. Senator, as you know, the Tax Court is unusual 

among Federal courts in that it has a specific procedure for smaller 

tax cases that taxpayers can elect. 

Senator HATCH. Right. 

Mr. LAUBER. If they do that, they are entitled to somewhat simplified procedures. I think it is a very, very important part of the 

role of the Tax Court judge to make these cases less daunting to 

these taxpayers who probably have never been in court before. Either they cannot afford a lawyer, or the amount at issue is not big 

enough to warrant the expense of hiring a lawyer. 

I think the goal there is to enable them to tell their story in a 

layperson’s manner and get at the truth and the facts and decide 

the case fairly, but make it as user-friendly, as it were, as possible 

for these less-sophisticated taxpayers. 

Senator HATCH. Well, thank you. 

Mr. Buch? 

Mr. BUCH. I think one of the most important roles of the Tax 

Court is providing a forum where people feel like they have been 

treated fairly. For many or most taxpayers who get into controversies with the IRS, the first independent body that they deal with 

is the U.S. Tax Court. They may have been through an examination with the IRS or through the IRS Appeals Division, but the Tax 

Court is the first truly independent body. 

So I think it is an important role for the Tax Court to make 

those people feel as though they have been treated fairly. And yes, 

9 

the Court must, at the end of the day, reach the right result. But 

again, simplified procedures that help those taxpayers through the 

system are a way that the Tax Court helps those people to ensure 

that they have been treated fairly, again, regardless of whether the 

ultimate result is in their favor or in the government’s favor. 

Senator HATCH. Let me just ask one other question that I would 

like to ask the both of you. That is, each of you has an extensive 

background working in tax. Given your experience working in tax 

matters and tax issues, to what extent do you believe that the complexity of the code contributes to the number and types of cases 

considered by the U.S. Tax Court? And assuming there is some 

type of correlation, how can we as legislators use that information 

to write better laws? 

Mr. LAUBER. Well, I think, Senator, the more complex the tax 

code is, the more opportunities there are for people to try to game 

the system or simply be confused about what the right answer is. 

I mean, there are now, I think, three or four separate provisions 

governing education expenses, deductions, and credits. It is just 

mind-numbingly complex. This is an area where people are in college, going to community college. 

To expect people at that level to be able to parse through three 

or four different ways of deducting their educational expenses, it 

just encourages confusion, and that will trigger audits because the 

computer at the IRS spots a problem and spits out a deficiency notice. 

So I think it is true that if you can simplify the code, eliminate 

these overlapping provisions that cause taxpayer confusion, you 

will reduce the amount of litigation. Indeed, I think, as I recall, the 

Tax Court’s docket of cases peaked at around 90,000, 85,000, in the 

early 1980s before the Reform Act was passed. In part, thanks to 

the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the docket is now down to 30,000 

cases. 

So we do have some empirical evidence that simplification does 

reduce litigation in the Tax Court. 

Senator HATCH. All right. 

Mr. Buch, do you have anything to add to that? 

Mr. BUCH. Simply that simplification naturally, I think, would 

have a correlative effect on the workload, for example, of the Court. 

One would have to assume that that would be the effect down the 

line. There is certainly a transition. It takes time. Simplification 

today would, I suppose, affect the docket maybe 5 years down the 

road, once you get into filing seasons and returns being filed. But 

simplification certainly would ease the workload of the Court. 

Senator HATCH. Well, I want to commend both of you. To give 

up your outside profession to serve is really, really commendable. 

We wish you the very best. Hopefully we can get these folks 

through. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. 

Mr. Lauber, why do you want this job? 

Mr. LAUBER. Well, I believe—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Why are you seeking it? 

Mr. LAUBER. I have been a law clerk twice, and I have been inside courthouses, watched the work of judges, and I have always 

wanted to be a judge. 

10 

The CHAIRMAN. Why? 

Mr. LAUBER. Well, I think I have always been regarded as a very 

good writer, so I think I will be a good writer of judicial opinions. 

I sort of—people often say being a judge is sort of a monastic existence. You are in chambers, you are in a very small law firm with 

two administrative assistants, a couple of law clerks, and you are 

not out in the public sector the way Senators are in the public eye 

all the time. I kind of like being on my word processor and drafting 

good prose. I think the lifestyle of a judge will suit me. 

I think I am very fair. I think I always try to be fair and reasonable, and I think that would be a good attribute for being a judge. 

I like public service, I really do. I believe in public service. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Buch, what about you? Why do you want to 

be a Tax Court judge? 

Mr. BUCH. It is a question I have asked myself as I have been 

going through this process, to be honest. [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. And what is the answer? [Laughter.] 

Mr. BUCH. I think different lawyers go through their profession 

looking at different parts of being a lawyer and view different 

things as the pinnacle of the profession. One of my best friends 

views being a solo practitioner as the pinnacle of the profession and 

recently went out and did that. 

I work for someone who went out and started his own law firm, 

and I suspect he viewed that as the pinnacle of the profession. A 

guy who sat next to me in law school viewed the pinnacle of the 

profession being the managing partner of his firm, and that is what 

he is doing today. I have always viewed the bench as the pinnacle 

of the profession. 

The CHAIRMAN. What do either of you want to accomplish? 

Mr. BUCH. I am sorry? 

The CHAIRMAN. What do either of you want to accomplish? How 

do you want to be known, regarded? What do you want to be 

known for when you retire? 

Mr. BUCH. One word for me: fairness. 

The CHAIRMAN. Here is Judge Buch, he is fair. 

Mr. BUCH. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right. 

Mr. Lauber, are there any goals that you are going to pursue as 

a Tax Court judge? What do you want to be known for, the legacy? 

What is this all about? 

Mr. LAUBER. I think judges should not become notorious. If they 

do, they are probably not doing their job very well. I think the job 

of a judge is to be fair, to act within the law. I would like to be 

reversed as little as possible by courts of appeals. I will try to get 

the answer right. I think that would be—having a low reversal percentage would be an accomplishment, I think. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, maybe they are wrong in the appellate 

court. [Laughter.] 

Senator HATCH. You will certainly feel that way if you are reversed. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are right. You are right. [Laughter.] 

Well, I appreciate that. I have no further questions. I just wish 

you both such success. I want to just note, though, that the Tax 

Court Chief Judge Thornton is in the audience here today, as well 

11 

as Judge Joe Gale. I know them both and am very proud of them. 

They will be great colleagues of yours. I wish you the utmost success and good luck. Thank your families too, because it is a mutual 

joint sacrifice, public service, and families are in this together. 

So, thank you all very much. 

Mr. LAUBER. Thank you. 

Mr. BUCH. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:38 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(13) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD


82626001.eps
14 


82626.002
15 


82626.003
16 


82626.004
17 


82626.005
18 


82626.006
19 


82626.007
20 


82626.008
21 


82626.009
22 


82626.010
23 


82626.011
24 


82626.012
25 


82626.013
26 


82626014.eps
27 


82626015.eps
28 


82626016.eps
29 


82626017.eps
30 


82626.018
31 


82626.019
32 


82626.020
33 


82626.021
34 


82626.022
35 


82626.023
36 


82626.024
37 


82626.025
38 

Æ 


82626026.eps