@article{sawyers_plečnik_2024, title={The Challenge of Challenging Tax Laws as Unconstitutionally Vague}, url={https://doi.org/10.2308/JLTR-2023-002}, DOI={10.2308/JLTR-2023-002}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Many laypersons (and CPAs and attorneys, for that matter) argue that federal tax statutes and regulations are complex, ambiguous, and vague. However, successfully challenging tax law as unconstitutionally vague has generally not been a successful strategy for taxpayers. In this article, we discuss the void for vagueness doctrine as it has been developed and applied in other areas of the law and review over 40 federal tax cases litigated over the last 20-plus years, in which taxpayers claim that a provision is unconstitutionally vague. Although taxpayer wins are rare, some tax cases find that a statute can be declared overly vague before clarifying regulations or other administrative guidance are issued. Regardless, vague tax laws run afoul of principles of good tax policy. We also provide suggestions for taxpayers and their advisors, who may argue in the future that a federal tax provision is unconstitutionally vague.}, journal={The ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research}, author={Sawyers, Roby B. and Plečnik, James}, year={2024}, month={May} } @book{sawyers_gill_2020, place={Mason}, title={Federal tax research}, publisher={South-Western}, author={Sawyers, Roby and Gill, Steven}, year={2020} } @article{sawyers_baumer_chumney_2016, title={Insider trading and IRC section 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii)}, volume={14}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84995902621&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.2308/jltr-51505}, abstractNote={ABSTRACT Tax returns, including corporate returns, are generally confidential and not disclosed to the public. However, in certain circumstances, Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 6103(e)(1)(D)(iii) provides that corporate shareholders who meet a 1 percent ownership criterion can request from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) a copy of the corporate tax return. In this paper, we discuss the legislative history of IRC Section 6103 as it relates to tax return disclosure in general (for individual and corporate returns) and its precursors that provide for disclosure of corporate tax returns to shareholders who own more than 1 percent of the capital stock. We then provide examples of the valuable proprietary information that is included in corporate tax returns. Next, we provide a history and discussion of the insider trading laws and argue that the information content of a corporate tax return is such that it provides material nonpublic information that is not readily available in annual reports or other public documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). While 1 percent shareholders do not meet the classical definition of an “insider,” we argue that they are similar to other “outsiders” who have been found liable for violating insider trading rules. We conclude by arguing that the actions of a 1 percent shareholder who requests and receives the corporate return and who subsequently makes purchases and/or sales of corporate stock should constitute illegal insider trading.}, number={1}, journal={ATA Journal of Legal Tax Research}, author={Sawyers, R.B. and Baumer, D.L. and Chumney, W.M.}, year={2016}, pages={58–71} } @book{sawyers_raabe_whittenburg_gill_2015, title={Federal tax research (10th ed.)}, ISBN={9781285439396}, publisher={Stamford, CT: Cengage Learning}, author={Sawyers, R. B. and Raabe, W. A. and Whittenburg, G. E. and Gill, S. L.}, year={2015} } @book{chumney_baumer_sawyers_2013, title={The patenting of a profession-accounting in the crosshairs}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-84890584624&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.4337/9781781007853.00012}, journal={The Changing Face of US Patent Law and its Impact on Business Strategy}, author={Chumney, W.M. and Baumer, D.L. and Sawyers, R.B.}, year={2013}, pages={104–122} } @misc{chumney_baumer_sawyers_2009, title={Patents Gone Wild: An Ethical Examination and Legal Analysis of Tax-Related and Tax Strategy Patents}, volume={46}, ISSN={["1744-1714"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-70349326550&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.1111/j.1744-1714.2009.01081.x}, abstractNote={American Business Law JournalVolume 46, Issue 3 p. 343-406 Patents Gone Wild: An Ethical Examination and Legal Analysis of Tax-Related and Tax Strategy Patents Wade M. Chumney, Wade M. Chumney University of Virginia School of Law aCecil B. Day Assistant Professor of Business Ethics and Law, Georgia Institute of Technology; B.A., Davidson College; M.S. (Information Systems), Dakota State University; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law. An earlier version of this article was awarded the Holmes-Cardozo Award for Outstanding Submitted Conference Paper and the Distinguished Proceedings Paper Award at the 2008 Annual Conference of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business.Search for more papers by this authorDavid L. Baumer, David L. Baumer University of Virginia bProfessor of Law and Technology, North Carolina State University; B.A., Ohio State University; J.D., University of Miami in Florida; Ph.D. (Economics), University of Virginia.Search for more papers by this authorRoby B. Sawyers, Roby B. Sawyers Arizona State University cProfessor of Accounting, North Carolina State University; B.S.B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; M.Acc., University of South Florida; Ph.D. Arizona State University.Search for more papers by this author Wade M. Chumney, Wade M. Chumney University of Virginia School of Law aCecil B. Day Assistant Professor of Business Ethics and Law, Georgia Institute of Technology; B.A., Davidson College; M.S. (Information Systems), Dakota State University; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law. An earlier version of this article was awarded the Holmes-Cardozo Award for Outstanding Submitted Conference Paper and the Distinguished Proceedings Paper Award at the 2008 Annual Conference of the Academy of Legal Studies in Business.Search for more papers by this authorDavid L. Baumer, David L. Baumer University of Virginia bProfessor of Law and Technology, North Carolina State University; B.A., Ohio State University; J.D., University of Miami in Florida; Ph.D. (Economics), University of Virginia.Search for more papers by this authorRoby B. Sawyers, Roby B. Sawyers Arizona State University cProfessor of Accounting, North Carolina State University; B.S.B.A., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; M.Acc., University of South Florida; Ph.D. Arizona State University.Search for more papers by this author First published: 17 September 2009 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2009.01081.xCitations: 5 Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Citing Literature Volume46, Issue3Fall 2009Pages 343-406 RelatedInformation}, number={3}, journal={AMERICAN BUSINESS LAW JOURNAL}, author={Chumney, Wade M. and Baumer, David L. and Sawyers, Roby B.}, year={2009}, pages={343–406} } @book{jackson_sawyers_2003, title={Managerial accounting: A focus on decision making (2nd ed.)}, ISBN={0324183429}, publisher={Australia; Mason, Ohio : Thomson/South-Western}, author={Jackson, S. and Sawyers, R.}, year={2003} } @article{sawyers_2001, title={Restructuring estate and gift taxes}, volume={54}, ISSN={["0028-0283"]}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0042909012&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, DOI={10.17310/ntj.2001.3.12}, abstractNote={Most observers agree that restructuring the current transfer tax system (encompassing the estate, gift and generation skipping transfer taxes) is warranted and appropriate. However, the debate in Congress and the press centers on exactly how the system should be changed. In this paper, I analyze and compare outright repeal of the transfer tax to two alternatives—significant modifications of the current transfer tax system and a tax on appreciation at death—and conclude that a combination of an increased exclusion amount, reduced tax rates, broad tax payment deferral relief for all estates, and modifications to the generation skipping transfer tax would satisfy many of the critics of the current system.}, number={3}, journal={NATIONAL TAX JOURNAL}, author={Sawyers, RB}, year={2001}, month={Sep}, pages={579–612} } @article{sawyers_beasley_1998, title={The impact of state taxation on the investment portfolio of banks}, number={suppl.}, journal={Journal of the American Taxation Association}, author={Sawyers, R. B. and Beasley, M. S.}, year={1998}, pages={1–14} } @article{chen_sawyers_williams_1997, title={Reinforcing ethical decision making through corporate culture}, volume={16}, url={http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?eid=2-s2.0-0001252476&partnerID=MN8TOARS}, number={8}, journal={Journal of Business Ethics}, author={Chen, A.Y.S. and Sawyers, R.B. and Williams, P.F.}, year={1997}, pages={855–865} }