[Senate Hearing 112-810]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
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
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
82-626 WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
MAX BAUCUS, Montana, Chairman
JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
Virginia CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
KENT CONRAD, North Dakota OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico JON KYL, Arizona
JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
RON WYDEN, Oregon PAT ROBERTS, Kansas
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan JOHN CORNYN, Texas
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey RICHARD BURR, North Carolina
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
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)
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 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 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.
[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 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 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 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
follow-on 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 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, 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.
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 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.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 82626.025