[Senate Hearing 116-438]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-438
NOMINATIONS OF BRENT JAMES McINTOSH,
BRIAN CALLANAN, BRIAN McGUIRE,
AND TRAVIS GREAVES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON THE
NOMINATIONS OF
BRENT JAMES McINTOSH, TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BRIAN CALLANAN, TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; BRIAN McGUIRE, TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; AND TRAVIS
GREAVES, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
__________
JULY 24, 2019
__________
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
44-390 PDF WASHINGTON : 2021
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
MIKE CRAPO, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon
PAT ROBERTS, Kansas DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
JOHN CORNYN, Texas ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
JOHN THUNE, South Dakota THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
ROB PORTMAN, Ohio MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
PATRICK J. TOOMEY, Pennsylvania ROBERT P. CASEY, Jr., Pennsylvania
TIM SCOTT, South Carolina MARK R. WARNER, Virginia
BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
STEVE DAINES, Montana MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire
TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
Kolan Davis, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Joshua Sheinkman, Democratic Staff Director
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Portman, Hon. Rob, a U.S. Senator from Ohio...................... 3
Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from Iowa, chairman,
Committee on Finance........................................... 5
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon...................... 6
CONGRESSIONAL WITNESSES
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha, a U.S. Senator from Tennessee............ 2
McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from Kentucky.............. 3
ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES
McIntosh, Hon. Brent James, nominated to be Under Secretary for
International Affairs, Department of the Treasury, Washington,
DC............................................................. 9
Callanan, Brian, nominated to be General Counsel, Department of
the Treasury, Washington, DC................................... 10
McGuire, Brian, nominated to be Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury, Washington, DC 11
Greaves, Travis, nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax
Court, Washington, DC.......................................... 13
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL
Blackburn, Hon. Marsha:
Testimony.................................................... 2
Callanan, Brian:
Testimony.................................................... 10
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Biographical information..................................... 32
Responses to questions from committee members................ 38
Grassley, Hon. Chuck:
Opening statement............................................ 5
Prepared statement with attachments.......................... 44
Greaves, Travis:
Testimony.................................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 51
Biographical information..................................... 51
Responses to questions from committee members................ 58
McConnell, Hon. Mitch:...........................................
Testimony.................................................... 3
Prepared statement........................................... 60
McGuire, Brian:
Testimony.................................................... 11
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Biographical information..................................... 62
McIntosh, Hon. Brent James:
Testimony.................................................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 70
Biographical information..................................... 71
Responses to questions from committee members................ 80
Portman, Hon. Rob:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening statement............................................ 6
Prepared statement........................................... 88
NOMINATIONS OF BRENT JAMES McINTOSH,
TO BE UNDER SECRETARY FOR
INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF
THE TREASURY; BRIAN CALLANAN, TO BE
GENERAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; BRIAN McGUIRE, TO BE
ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LEGISLATIVE
AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY;
AND TRAVIS GREAVES, TO BE A JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 2019
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Finance,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10:15
a.m., in room SD-215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon.
Chuck Grassley (chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Roberts, Thune, Portman, Scott,
Cassidy, Young, Wyden, Cantwell, Carper, Cardin, Brown, Casey,
Whitehouse, Hassan, and Cortez Masto.
Also present: Republican staff: John Schoenecker, Senior
Investigative Counsel; Delisa Ragsdale, Chief Investigative
Counsel; Mark Warren, Chief Tax Counsel; Jeffrey Wrase, Deputy
Staff Director and Chief Economist; and Nicholas Wyatt, Tax,
Infrastructure, and Nominations Policy Advisor. Democratic
staff: Chris Arneson, Tax Policy Advisor; Michael Evans, Deputy
Staff Director and Chief Counsel; Sally Laing, Senior
International Trade Counsel; Ian Nicholson, Investigator; Greta
Peisch, Senior International Trade Counsel; and Tiffany Smith,
Chief Tax Counsel.
The Chairman. Today, the Finance Committee will hear from
four nominees, three from the Treasury Department and one for
the U.S. Tax Court.
Before I give my opening statement, I am going to call on
Senator Blackburn to give her statement. But if you have a 10-
minute statement, I am going to interrupt you and let Senator
McConnell give his statement, because he is busy. But he is not
here, so would you proceed, please?
STATEMENT OF HON. MARSHA BLACKBURN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE
Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I will proceed
with pleasure. And I can assure you, it is not a 10-minute
statement.
It is really such a pleasure for me to present to the
committee my fellow Tennessean, Travis Austin Greaves. He is
President Trump's nominee for the U.S. Tax Court.
Travis was born in Texas, but he got to Tennessee as fast
as he could. He and his family moved to Knoxville, TN when he
was 11. And he received his B.A. from the University of
Tennessee, and that is where he met his wife Holly. And she is
a native of Cookeville, TN. He and Holly are the proud parents
of two children, and they are expecting their third child, a
little boy, in November. And I told Holly I am pushing for a
November 21st delivery date, even though that would be past her
delivery date, but is when my daughter was born.
Travis attended South Texas College of Law, where he
received his law degree. He earned his LL.M. with distinction
from Georgetown. He went on to serve as an attorney advisor to
the U.S. Tax Court.
After his time at the Tax Court, he practiced law here in
Washington, DC, where he specialized in tax controversy and
litigation. He eventually co-founded a law firm that advised
individuals and businesses on Federal and State tax disputes.
Travis is now serving our country as a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in the Justice Department's Tax Division. In
this role, he oversees all Federal tax appellate matters for
the U.S., including all appeals from the Tax Court. Travis also
teaches and mentors students as an adjunct professor on tax law
at Georgetown University's Law Center.
Mr. Chairman, I am so honored to present him today and am
absolutely thrilled to see him nominated for this position. In
talking with Travis and those who have known him for years, it
is clear that he has the competency and the temperament to
excel as a judge on the Tax Court.
His past experiences have taught him to treat each litigant
fairly and to impartially approach and to respect the rule of
law. And I would expect nothing less from my fellow Tennessean.
You may know that Tennessee is nicknamed ``The Volunteer
State.'' And that is a nickname that we Tennesseans accept with
pride. And it is not just for UT sports, it is because people,
Tennesseans like Travis, answer the call to serve our
communities, our State, and our country.
I hope that you will move Travis through the committee
expeditiously and get him confirmed promptly. And we are going
to look forward to seeing him seated on the Court.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. And we usually do not
ask questions of our colleagues, so you can leave if you want
to. [Laughter.]
I am going to open up with my statement, and I am going to
interrupt my own statement when Senator McConnell gets here.
This morning we will first hear--Senator McConnell has
arrived, and we will, if he is ready, take his statement.
Senator McConnell, I recognize you.
STATEMENT OF HON. MITCH McCONNELL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM KENTUCKY
Senator McConnell. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I am going to ask that my remarks about Brian McGuire appear in
the record, but I do want to make a few observations.
The Chairman. They will be taken into the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator McConnell appears in the
appendix.]
Senator McConnell. I have been fortunate over the years to
have a number of outstanding young men and women work on my
team. I am hard-pressed to think of anybody more outstanding
than Brian McGuire.
I met him in 2007. He was somewhere in the Bush
administration and was recommended to me as a speech writer.
And I have had a few speech writers over the years, none better
than Brian McGuire. And he was there during challenging times
in the Republican leader's office that included the Iraq War,
the financial meltdown--a whole lot of other tense and high-
profile moments--and never lost his cool. He always had good
advice. And so, when an opening came up to be Chief of Staff in
my personal office, I put him in a totally different role from
the one he had been in prior to that.
He was not from Kentucky. He had heard of Louisville, but
within a short period of time, he knew every county. He made
sure he knew all the things that were important to our State
that we were dealing with in my personal office. And I must
say, I was deeply saddened when he decided to go into the
private sector.
I could not be more grateful for the decade we worked
together on behalf of the Nation and Kentucky. I am really
proud of him. I think he will make a fabulous addition to the
Treasury Department, and I wanted to come by and say that to
all of you, that this is a top-flight nominee. I think the
President was wise to select him. I am enthusiastically in his
corner, and I hope you will be as well.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to be here
today.
The Chairman. Thank you, Leader, and we will let you go
now. We do not generally have questions of members.
Senator Portman, you wanted to introduce somebody. I have
not given my opening statement, but I think it would be
appropriate if you go ahead at this point.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROB PORTMAN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM OHIO
Senator Portman. Great. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.
I appreciate you letting me introduce two distinguished
individuals before the committee today. They are on the left
part of the panel there: Brent McIntosh and Brian Callanan. I
appreciate their willingness to step forward and to serve in
these two important public service roles. They have dedicated
much of their lives to public service, and I hope that the
committee will support their nominations.
Brent McIntosh has been nominated to be Under Secretary of
the Treasury for International Affairs, filling the role
vacated by David Malpass. As you know, he was sent over to the
World Bank recently. Currently he serves as General Counsel at
Treasury and is well qualified for it. He graduated from
Michigan Law--University of Michigan undergraduate, which we
will not hold against him--and then earned his law degree from
Yale.
He clerked for both Judge Dennis Jacobs on the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals and Judge Laurence Silberman on the DC
Circuit Court of Appeals. Smart guy.
Afterwards, he continued to establish himself as a
dedicated public servant. I got the pleasure to work with him
in the Bush administration and got to know him, actually, when
he served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General during my time
as U.S. Trade Rep. And then, when I moved over to become OMB
Director, Brent moved over to the White House, where I saw him
a lot and worked with him. He was Associate Counsel to the
President, and then Deputy Staff Secretary and Deputy Assistant
to the President.
After serving at Sullivan and Cromwell, Brent once again
stepped back into public service when he was nominated to serve
at Treasury as General Counsel. He has been there for the last
2 years, and a number of us have worked with him in that
capacity as well.
I commended Brent at his last nomination a couple of
summers ago on his honesty, intelligence, and integrity that I
saw when I worked with him in the Bush administration. I can
safely say he has lived up to that reputation during his time
as Treasury General Counsel, Mr. Chairman, and I am pleased to
see him continue now in this new role.
The other gentleman is Brian Callanan. He has darkened the
doors of this committee many times, because he worked for me as
my counsel. He worked a lot on tax reform back in the day, and
also worked on a bipartisan basis on some difficult issues as
we dealt with the budget issues. The President has nominated
Brian to be the General Counsel to fill Brent's role. He
currently serves as the Deputy General Counsel. He attended
Claremont McKenna College and got a J.D. at Harvard. In 2008 he
clerked for Judge Raymond Randolph on the DC Circuit Court of
Appeals and worked as an associate at Gibson Dunn. And again,
in 2011, I had the pleasure of having him on my team as my
General Counsel before he returned to private practice.
He then returned to my team in 2015, where he became Staff
Director and General Counsel of the Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, which I chair. During his time in both my
office and at PSI, Brian showed a strong commitment to
oversight and a thorough grasp of some of the most important
and complex policy issues that we worked on, including again
the budget discussions from the supercommittee, the tax issues.
He briefly worked as a partner in the law firm of Cooper
and Kirk before returning to public service again, this time at
Treasury. So it has been a pleasure to work with Brian over the
last 2 years on a variety of issues in his new role at
Treasury, and I know he will approach the role of General
Counsel with the same level of expertise, integrity, and
respect for Congress that he exemplified during his time
working for me.
So these nominees are exceptional public servants, Mr.
Chairman, and great people. They have the experience and the
qualifications to do these jobs, and do them well. If
confirmed, I know they are going to serve our country with
honor, and I am proud to support their nominations before the
committee.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
IOWA, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Portman.
The portfolio for Treasury Under Secretary for
International Affairs is broad, including working with many
multinational organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Given that this position is related to international affairs, I
would like to take a moment to stress again that the Treasury
and the administration should use all available tools under
U.S. law to encourage other countries to stop efforts to
implement unilateral digital service taxes like the ones in
France and under consideration in the UK. Instead, our trading
partners should be focusing on the multilateral efforts
underway by the Organisation for Economic Co-
operation and Development.
I was pleased to see Secretary Mnuchin's reported comments
after the G7 finance ministers' meeting last week indicating a
two-track process with respect to these issues--meaning the
continuation of section 301 investigations of the French
Digital Services Tax, while also negotiating with the OECD
Inclusive Framework members on a consensus solution to the tax
challenges of the digital economy.
Through multiple letters and other communications, Senator
Wyden and I together have expressed our bipartisan interest in
Treasury continuing its active participation in the OECD
negotiations and using all tools available to prevent
unilateral measures. I look forward to any comments our
Treasury witnesses would like to provide on that matter.
Next is Brian Callanan, who is nominated to Mr. McIntosh's
current position as Treasury General Counsel. Since the tax act
of 2017, the Treasury Department has done a very good job of
developing regulations and other guidance to implement that
law. The office of General Counsel has been an indispensable
part of that process, while also fulfilling all other legal
responsibilities at Treasury.
Next we will hear from Brian McGuire, nominated to be
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. I have talked many
times about how important it is that members of this committee
are able to get their questions answered and responses to their
inquiries. I am heartened that Mr. McGuire has worked so many
years in Leader McConnell's office, so I expect he has learned
how important it is to this Senator for the executive branch to
cooperate and work with those of us here in the legislature on
our constitutional responsibilities on oversight.
Finally, we will hear from Travis Greaves, nominated to a
term of 15 years on the U.S. Tax Court. The Tax Court is where
taxpayers can turn to settle a disputed liability with the
government, and without having to pay the disputed tax before
their case is heard. If Mr. Greaves is confirmed, along with
two other nominees who have already been reported from this
committee in this Congress, 18 of the 19 positions on the Tax
Court will be filled.
So I thank all of you for your willingness to serve the
people of this country, and for your public service generally.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Grassley appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. And now it is Senator Wyden's turn.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
We are talking about four important nominations this
morning. Mr. Brent McIntosh is nominated to be Treasury Under
Secretary for International Affairs. Mr. Brian Callanan is
nominated to be Treasury General Counsel. Mr. Brian McGuire is
nominated to be Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Legislative Affairs. And Mr. Travis Greaves is nominated to be
a judge in the United States Tax Court.
I am going to start my comments with the Treasury nominees.
There has been a pattern among some of the Trump nominees who
have come before the committee--an unfortunate pattern. In this
room, these nominees swear up and down that they are going to
serve with independence on behalf of all Americans. But after
they are confirmed, somehow you just seem to see blind loyalty
to Donald Trump taking precedence over following the law.
The nominees before the committee today are experienced.
There is no debate about that. But with the Trump
administration defying virtually all congressional oversight,
the right resumes are just not enough. The Finance Committee
ought to be able to have confidence that nominees will resist
pressure to make politically expedient decisions that help
Donald Trump personally at the expense of typical American
families.
In that vein, I am going to turn to a couple of specific
items, starting with the Treasury Department's handling of the
Ways and Means Committee's request for Donald Trump's tax
returns under section 6103 of the tax code. From where I sit,
the Treasury Department has tossed aside the law and decades of
precedent to protect the President from congressional scrutiny.
In May, I began investigating whether there was political
interference in the decision to withhold the tax returns. I
asked the Treasury a series of questions about the involvement
of political appointees, and the initial response was
misleading and inaccurate--and sometimes both. I went back and
then said, ``I have got to have concrete answers.'' After
working with the Treasury to get them, the set of facts the
Department agreed upon shows the unprecedented nature of its
actions.
The type of inquiry I am talking about has never, over
years and years, been political. Now, the Trump Treasury
Department is politicizing it, and in effect using a process
for Donald Trump that breaks with decades of precedent.
The Treasury Secretary has never before been involved in
responding to a request for tax returns under section 6103.
Secretary Mnuchin is in fact the first.
Second, the Treasury Department has never before formally
consulted the Office of Legal Counsel on whether to comply with
a specific request in this area, 6103. The OLC's opinion to me
reads like it was written by Rudy Giuliani to justify the
decision the Treasury had already made. The analysis put
forward by the Justice Department has already been laughed out
of court by judges who have noted that the Congress has broad
investigative authority.
And third, the Treasury Department has never before
formally considered whether there is a legitimate legislative
purpose behind a 6103 request. Not even for the chairman's
investigation into ACORN.
Taken together, it is just impossible to conclude that any
of what the Treasury Department did was on the level. That is
why I have deep concerns about the nomination of Brent McIntosh
and Brian Callanan, who played central roles in the
Department's response.
They were also right in the middle of the Trump
administration's decision to allow more foreign money and dark
money groups like the NRA to buy their desired outcomes in
American elections. I think that was a horrible decision, and
the damage was compounded when the Treasury Department then
made a frivolous argument to attempt to thwart congressional
review of the rule.
I just do not think you can ignore those facts. Mr.
McIntosh and Mr. Callanan are currently the top lawyers at the
Treasury Department. It appears that Treasury's leadership is
more interested in protecting Donald Trump and party interests
than guaranteeing the Department follows the law. So in my
judgment, that is not the kind of conduct that gets you a
promotion.
Let me switch gears now for a moment to the Tax Court.
Travis Greaves has been nominated to serve a 15-year term and
would help ensure that taxpayers get a fair shake in resolving
tax disputes. The nominee does have 2 years of experience at
the Justice Department's Tax Division, as well as time in the
private sector.
I am struck, however, by the fact that Mr. Greaves's
nomination to the committee is not accompanied by a
recommendation letter from the Bar Association, particularly
the Tax Section of the Bar Association. This is the first time
in many years such a letter was not included with the required
paperwork of a Tax Court judge.
Now we will examine what this is all about. It could be
that Mr. Greaves's experience is more limited than other
nominees to the Tax Court, but that is the point of a hearing:
to examine those kinds of issues and to hear from the nominee
why he believes he is qualified for this important role.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, and I know we look forward to
hearing from our witnesses and our questions.
[The prepared statement of Senator Wyden appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. I still have two or three things to do before
we start with Mr. McIntosh.
First of all, I would like to recognize the following
judges who are in the audience, I am told. They are here from
the Tax Court. We have Tamara Ashford, Ronald Buch, Albert
Lauber, Joseph Nega, Cary Douglas Pugh, Patrick Urda, special
trial judge Diana Leyden, and Alina Marshall, counsel to the
Chief Judge, who I understand clerked for Judge Greaves from
2010 to 2011. Finally, 38 professionals who have worked with
Mr. Greaves wrote the committee to highlight his experience and
recommend his appointment to the Tax Court. So I would ask
unanimous consent that their letter be printed in the record.
[The letter appears in the appendix beginning on page 45.]
The Chairman. Also, in the case of Mr. McIntosh, I want to
mention a letter received from 91 of your colleagues who have
worked with you at various places like the White House, the
Department of the Treasury, Department of Justice, the letter
of strong recommendation for your confirmation, and I quote, in
part: ``We believe that Brent has the judgment, acumen, the
integrity, and temperament necessary to serve our Nation with
distinction in the role of Under Secretary,'' end of quote. And
the letter is signed by 91 people, including former Under
Secretary Tim Adams, former counsel to the President Fred
Fielding, former Secretary of Interior Dirk Kempthorn, former
chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors Kevin Hassett,
among other notable public servants. And so that will be put in
the record, without objection.
[The letter appears in the appendix beginning on page 47.]
The Chairman. And then, since Senator Wyden has brought up
a letter that we receive about qualifications, I want to make
sure that the record fully reflects his background. While it is
true that the ABA Tax Section did not issue a letter rating
this nominee, the Tax Section did not rate him as not
qualified, which they could have done.
My staff was informed by representatives of the ABA Tax
Section that no inference should be drawn from the absence of
the letter. Mr. Greaves currently serves a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Tax Division, Department of Justice. In the
past, he has worked at the firm of Caplin and Drysdale, as an
attorney advisor at the Tax Court, and as an adjunct professor
at Georgetown University Law School.
I mention these roles to show that Mr. Greaves has academic
and private-sector experience in addition to his current role
at the Tax Court.
Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman, if I could just briefly?
The Chairman. Go ahead, please. Yes, you may.
Senator Wyden. The chairman is absolutely right, and that
is why I look forward to hearing from Mr. Greaves so he can
talk us through why he is qualified. Thank you.
The Chairman. Okay; now we finally get to the purpose of
this meeting, and that is to hear from our nominees.
We are going to start with you, Mr. McIntosh. And for all
of you, so I do not repeat it again, I will just call on you,
but you can give any opening statement, and you can introduce
or refer to family members and friends who are here to support
you, or for any reason that they are here.
So, proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. BRENT JAMES McINTOSH, NOMINATED TO BE UNDER
SECRETARY FOR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. McIntosh. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden,
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear here today before you. I am honored to be the
President's nominee to be Under Secretary of the Treasury for
International Affairs, and I am grateful to the Secretary for
the confidence in recommending me for this position.
I also want to sincerely thank my friend Senator Portman
for that generous introduction. Working with you, Senator, both
in the White House and more recently, has been a privilege and
a pleasure.
Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to
acknowledge my family. Here with me today is my beloved wife of
18 years, Laura, who graces my life, as well as my parents Carl
and Shirley McIntosh, who have always brought a quiet ethic of
community service to all that they do. Both of my parents grew
up on farms in the thumb of Michigan, as we discussed, Mr.
Chairman, and they have driven in from that great State for
today's hearing.
My wonderful children, Mia, Rhys, and Ethan, could not be
here today as they are enjoying summer camps in New England,
and I am not heartless enough to tear them away from that.
As Treasury's General Counsel for the past 2 years, I have
appreciated the opportunity to work with many of you and your
staffs. Since being nominated to be Under Secretary, I have met
with several of you, and I am grateful for the courtesies you
afforded me in those meetings.
I take seriously the priorities that committee members
outlined during our visits, and those meetings only reinforced
to me the importance of a close working relationship with the
Congress. Over the past 2 years, I have endeavored to foster
that relationship, and I look forward to working with you and
your staffs to strengthen and deepen it, should I be confirmed
as Under Secretary.
When I appeared here 2 years ago, I observed that the
challenges Treasury confronts are daunting in both breadth and
complexity. My service as General Counsel has driven home just
how true that is. It has been a privilege to confront these
challenges, standing arm-in-arm with the immensely talented and
dedicated career attorneys and staff of Treasury's Legal
Division. Their work and insight benefit our Department and our
Nation every day.
I have seen firsthand that many of Treasury's most pressing
challenges manifest themselves in our economic and financial
relationships with foreign countries and with various
international institutions. These issues run the gamut:
ensuring our Nation's voice is clearly heard in coordinating
international financial regulation; negotiating economic
agreements with foreign countries; advancing U.S. interests in
multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF; and
providing valuable technical assistance to developing
countries.
Treasury's International Affairs Division has a special
responsibility to effectively implement last year's bipartisan
legislation modernizing the CFIUS investment security regime, a
task that has profound implications for both our economy and
our national security. Serving as General Counsel has afforded
me the opportunity to work toward solving these challenges
alongside former Under Secretary David Malpass and his team,
especially the hardworking experts who make up IA's career
staff.
It is an honor to be nominated to lead IA's continued
efforts on behalf of the American people. The international
issues in Treasury's remit may at times seem esoteric or far-
flung, but as David Malpass said during his confirmation
hearing, and as I have consistently seen during my government
service, those issues have significant, real-world impacts on
the citizens of every State in the Union. That reality demands
unwavering focus on the effects that international matters have
on individual Americans, and it must be a guiding principle for
those who are charged with advancing our Nation's interests
abroad.
I pledge that, if confirmed, it will guide my every action.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I
look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McIntosh appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN CALLANAN, NOMINATED TO BE GENERAL COUNSEL,
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Callanan. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden,
members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. I am honored to be the President's
nominee to serve as General Counsel for the Treasury
Department, and I am grateful to Secretary Mnuchin for his
confidence.
I am pleased to be joined today by my extraordinary wife
Amanda, who wisely warned me that our 10-month-old son Charlie
may not have the deportment required for a Senate hearing. So
he is at home eating Cheerios instead.
I am also joined by my mother, who was a public school
teacher for many years and my first teacher. I only regret that
my late father, whom we lost to cancer in May, cannot be here
today. My dad was a career civil servant. He devoted his entire
professional life to public service--starting out as a juvenile
probation officer in the court system of our home State of New
Jersey and concluding his career working for the U.S. Agency
for International Development to improve the civil and criminal
justice systems of other nations across four continents. Both
of my parents encouraged my early interest in public service.
It is a particular honor to come as a nominee before this
committee, where I had the opportunity to sit, on occasion, on
the other side of the dais when I was working for Senator
Portman. I learned a lot from his steady example of integrity
and civility, and I am very grateful for his generous words
today.
My time as a lawyer in the U.S. Senate was a formative
experience for me. It taught me a great deal about the
legislative process, the significant role of congressional
oversight, and the importance of mutual trust and respect
between the executive branch and Congress. Should I be
confirmed, I will strive to ensure that Treasury continues to
be responsive to congressional needs and inquiries.
Government lawyers are, in a special way, stewards of the
institutions that we serve. Every agency of our government--
even one with a seal that reads 1789, as Treasury's does--is
ultimately a creature of legislative enactment. As I see it,
the role of the Treasury General Counsel is to ensure that the
Department acts in fidelity to law and fulfills the statutory
responsibilities entrusted to us, ever mindful that the laws we
implement will long outlast us.
Treasury's responsibilities are vast and varied. From
implementing our tax code to administering our Nation's
finances, from protecting the integrity of our Nation's
financial system to deploying America's financial might to
combat global threats, the Treasury Department is engaged every
day in work that is vital to the security and prosperity of our
Nation. And that work generates no shortage of complex,
difficult legal questions.
Fortunately, the Department is home to some of the finest,
most dedicated lawyers anywhere in the country--the Treasury
Legal Division. Under one roof, we have a legal team with deep
and wide expertise in areas of law as diverse as tax, economic
sanctions, financial regulation, international development,
trade, public finance, and much more.
It has been a distinct privilege to work shoulder to
shoulder with these serious and skilled lawyers throughout my
service as Deputy General Counsel and as Acting General Counsel
during a critical transition period. If confirmed, I would be
honored to lead this remarkable group of public servants and to
continue to work closely with them on the important issues in
which Treasury is engaged. If confirmed, I commit to perform my
responsibilities with integrity and humility--and always with a
devotion to the Constitution and laws under which all of us
serve.
I look forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Callanan appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Mr. McGuire?
STATEMENT OF BRIAN McGUIRE, NOMINATED TO BE ASSISTANT SECRETARY
FOR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. McGuire. Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden,
distinguished members of the committee, I am honored to appear
before you this morning and grateful to the President and to
Treasury Secretary Mnuchin for recommending me for the position
of Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
I am conscious as I sit here of the great responsibility
and privilege that being nominated for this position
represents, and I am humbled to stand in the company of those
who have served in this role before me.
I am grateful to be joined this morning by my parents,
David and Veronica McGuire, who made the trip from Albany, NY
to be here. Without their generous support and example of
service, I would not be sitting here this morning.
My father moved to Capitol Hill after graduating from
college in 1958, but almost immediately returned home at the
urging of his older brother to, quote, ``get a real job.'' He
went on to spend nearly 4 decades as a public, middle, and high
school principal in Albany, NY. I often reflect that I am
living vicariously the life he dreamed of when he moved here 61
summers ago.
My mother, meanwhile, spent nearly 3 decades working full
time as a secretary at Albany's only VA hospital. True
partners, together they raised four children on a tight budget,
making many sacrifices along the way for each of us. They will
be married 55 years next month.
I am also grateful to be joined by my sister, Annemarie,
who also made the trip from Albany; the oldest of my three
children, Stella, who is playing hooky from music camp to get a
civics lesson this morning; and by my wife Ashley, an author
and native Coloradan whose encouragement and many sacrifices
have made it possible for me to consider a return to public
service.
I would like to take a moment to thank the Senators and
staff who have given of their time to meet with me in
preparation for today's hearing and to share with me their
priorities and concerns. If I am fortunate enough to be
confirmed, I pledge to continue the dialogue we have begun and
to be as available and responsive to members and staff from
both parties and both chambers as I can possibly be.
As a former Senate staffer, I believe I am uniquely alert
to the perspective, the demands, and the deadlines of Senators
and their staffs, and I commit to you this morning that, if
confirmed, my door and my mind will always be open. It is my
sincere intention, if confirmed, to spend far more time
listening than talking and to be an accessible and dependable
source of prompt and honest feedback.
In reflecting on the decade I spent working in both the
Senate Republican leadership office and in the personal office
of Leader McConnell, I cannot help but acknowledge the debt I
owe to him. I cherish the memory of my years in both offices
and am grateful for the mentorship and the opportunities that
Leader McConnell gave to this native New Yorker in the midst of
so many other pressing responsibilities. And I am grateful for
his comments this morning.
Treasury is a special place with a storied past and a vital
role in ensuring the growth and stability of an increasingly
complex domestic economy; in reinforcing our Nation's central
role in the international financial system; and, crucially, in
developing and aggressively implementing complex policies and
strategies to combat terrorist financing and financial crimes
both here and around the globe.
I have long admired the work of the Department and the many
remarkable career and non-career professionals who have carried
out this complicated work and who have brought their creativity
to bear on the various crises and challenges of our day.
As a graduate student in Manhattan in 2001, I watched as
Treasury grappled with the post-9/11 order; and as a Senate
staffer in 2008, I watched from a slightly closer vantage point
as Treasury wrestled with a terrible financial crisis that few
saw coming.
If confirmed, I cannot promise to bring the same
intellectual gifts as many of these heroic public servants, but
I pledge to bring the same seriousness and sense of purpose to
my job that so many others have brought to the Department
before me.
Thank you again for your consideration. I look forward to
your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McGuire appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. Now, Mr. Greaves?
STATEMENT OF TRAVIS GREAVES, NOMINATED TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Greaves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wyden,
and distinguished members of the committee. And thank you,
Senator Blackburn, for your kind introduction and for your
tireless work for all Tennesseans.
It is a great privilege to be here today, and I appreciate
all the care that the committee members and staff have put
towards my nomination and for preparing for today's hearing.
I am honored and grateful to have been nominated by
President Trump to be a judge on the U.S. Tax Court, the place
where I began my career as a tax attorney. I learned early on
the important role the Tax Court plays in our society, serving
as the primary prepayment forum for taxpayers challenging IRS
determinations.
Most taxpayers appearing in the Tax Court are pro se and
have little if any legal background. During my time at the
Court, I witnessed firsthand how daunting appearing in court
can be for pro se litigants. If I am confirmed, I assure the
committee that I will make every effort to balance the need to
help these taxpayers understand the Court's rules and
procedures, while remaining independent and impartial.
Over my career, I have worked on almost every side of a tax
controversy matter, and I have had the good fortune to learn
from many great tax practitioners. As an attorney adviser at
the Tax Court, judges, including some here today, taught me the
importance of keeping an open mind in each case and of
adjudicating cases in a fair and timely manner.
If confirmed, these are lessons that I will take with me to
the bench. In private practice, I worked at firms ranging in
size from 1,500 attorneys to 2 attorneys, and I represented all
types of clients. No matter the firm or client, I learned
something every day from my colleagues. I would like to thank
the attorneys at Reed Smith, Caplin and Drysdale, and my former
law partner Josh Wu for constantly challenging me to be a
better attorney.
I now serve in government as Deputy Assistant Attorney
General in the Department of Justice's Tax Division. In this
role, I work with dedicated lawyers and professionals in our
Appellate Section and Office of Review, as well as with
Division and Departmental leadership. It has been a true honor
and privilege to work with such an amazing group of public
servants, including the Tax Division's Principal Deputy
Assistant Attorney General Richard Zuckerman, my counsels Julie
Avetta, Jacob Christiansen, and Nate Pollock, who are all here
today.
On a personal note, the Lord has blessed me with amazing
family and friends. First, I would like to thank my wife Holly,
who is here with us and brought our third child, a baby boy who
is due in November. Our daughter Catherine, who is one, chose a
nap over dad's hearing, and our son Fisher was initially
intrigued by the offer but declined once he realized that it
would interfere with his recess time. As a husband and father,
you all have taught me patience, humility, and compassion.
I also want to introduce my mother, Jan Fisher Greaves, who
is the best judge I have ever known. She was the first female
judge in Ector County, TX and the only judge when it came to
resolving disputes between me and my siblings. Though I am
constantly amazed at her legal acumen, it is her love for her
family that impresses me the most.
I also welcome my sisters Amber and Shelby, both joining me
from Texas; my brother Jackson; and my in-laws Larry and Alice
Sweeton, joining me from Tennessee. To all of my family, thank
you for all your support.
Finally, I have some of the best friends in the world, some
of whom are in attendance today. From DC to Texas, you all mean
so much to me, and I would not be here today without you.
Thank you again to the committee for holding today's
hearing, and I look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Greaves appears in the
appendix.]
The Chairman. There are four questions we ask everybody
before individuals get into the subject matter. Is there
anything that you are aware of in your background that would
present a conflict of interest with the duties of office to
which you have been nominated? Mr. McIntosh?
Mr. McIntosh. No.
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. No, Senator.
The Chairman. Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. No, Senator.
The Chairman. Mr. Greaves?
Mr. Greaves. No, Mr. Chairman.
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 for
which you have been nominated? Mr. McIntosh?
Mr. McIntosh. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Greaves?
Mr. Greaves. No, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay. The next question: 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? So, Mr. McIntosh?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let me ask my staff: does that apply to the
judge too? Mr. Greaves?
Mr. Greaves. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Okay. And finally, do you commit to providing
prompt responses in writing to any questions addressed to you
by any Senator of this committee? Mr. McIntosh?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Mr. McGuire?
Mr. McGuire. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. And does that apply to--it applies to the tax
judge as well.
Mr. Greaves. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you. Now let me remind you that
everybody says ``yes'' to this question, but we do not often
get the answers that are promised. So I always facetiously say,
maybe you should have said ``maybe.'' But I think it would be
better if you keep to what you said: that you will respond--and
hopefully the first time, not after we have to write five or
six letters to get an answer to us.
So I am going to start--should I go vote? Okay, I will call
on Senator Wyden, and I will go vote. Senator Portman will be
taking over. And then I will vote and immediately come back.
Senator Wyden. Is it all right if I start, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Yes.
Senator Wyden. Great. I am going to start with you, Mr.
McIntosh, if I could. The President said that as part of
ongoing trade negotiations with China, he would agree to allow
Huawei to buy U.S. products, despite the Department of
Commerce's determination that Huawei is involved in activities,
and I quote, ``contrary to the national security or foreign
policy interests of the United States,'' unquote.
As I said before, Huawei and other companies have been
placed on this Bureau of Industry and Security Entity List
because their structure, financing, and controlling powers are
a danger to America's long-term security. In addition to
serving on this committee, I am on the Intelligence Committee.
Continuing to trade with these companies as part of the trade
deal sacrifices the safety of American families for a quick
buck and political points.
Do you think it is appropriate to put national security on
the table when negotiating trade agreements?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, thank you for that question. The
touchstone of our work on Huawei is national security. National
security is the foremost and only value we consider with regard
to national security.
The presence of Huawei on Commerce's Entity List is a
result of the national security threat that Huawei poses. Now
the contours of our policy regarding Huawei, I believe, are
being shaped by the Commerce Department's consideration of
possible licenses to certain American companies based on the
actual contours of the national security threat that Huawei
poses.
And so the extent, for example, an American company
provides generic parts to Huawei that could be sourced from the
United States or South Korea or any number of other places, I
understand that that may not touch the national security threat
in the same way that, for example, having Huawei routers here
at the Senate or in the Treasury Department would.
And so I can assure you, based on my conversations with
those who are handling this matter, that national security is
the guiding principle here that we are shaping the policy
around.
Senator Wyden. You have said that it is, but the
President's statement says he would allow Huawei to buy U.S.
products, despite the Department of Commerce saying that this
is a company involved in activities detrimental to our national
security; those two are in conflict. I know you are kind of
parsing some words to try to reconcile them, but I do not think
it works.
Let me turn now for my second question to Mr. McIntosh and
Mr. Callanan, and I have colleagues here--Senator Casey,
Senator Whitehouse--who are experts on this matter as well,
which is the dark money rule, the IRS dark money rule.
On July 16th of last year, the IRS issued a new rule saying
that dark money groups no longer needed to tell the IRS who
their major donors are. On the same day, the Federal Government
arrested Russian agent Maria Butina for using the NRA dark
money organization to illegally influence the political
process. And right-wing organizations have been pushing this
for years, and we know that State tax administration officials
who are experts on this and supporters of campaign finance
transparency opposed the change.
Now, Senator Casey earlier this year learned that the IRS
deviated from its standard process and did not even check with
its Criminal Investigations division before issuing the rule.
We also know that Montana and New Jersey--and we have
colleagues on this committee from those States--are challenging
the Treasury Department's decision to circumvent notice and
comment requirements in Federal court.
So my question for Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Callanan is, why
did the Treasury Department decide that officials in Montana
and New Jersey should not get a chance to comment, should not
be afforded an opportunity for notice and comment? And why
would the Department not give tax-exempt experts, law
enforcement, and campaign officials an opportunity for notice
and comment?
These are people who are knowledgeable in the field. This
is a big change that is a big win for secret government and
dark money, and they did not even get a chance to comment--I
mean, just the opportunity to be heard. Now, how is that in the
public interest, Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Callanan?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, thanks for that question. I had a
good discussion of this topic with Senator Whitehouse in my
meeting with him. The standard that the IRS uses to determine
collection of information is whether it is necessary to the
efficient administration of the Internal Revenue laws. So, for
example, the Federal election laws are not a subject of their
collection process.
The IRS has also--this is a longstanding IRS proposal to
require 501(c)4s and (c)6s to maintain the information, but not
to submit it immediately to the IRS without a request. And that
request has been one that has been pending from the IRS for
some time. And the Commissioner made a determination that,
having that information available but not immediately collected
was sufficient for the Internal Revenue laws.
Senator Wyden. Look, this makes it easier for dark money
groups to be able to do their business in secret, and there is
no parsing or legalese that can in any way undermine that
judgment. I think you are going to hear from my colleagues
about it.
This, at a minimum--at a minimum--is something where there
should have been an opportunity for people who thought
differently than you all to have a chance for notice and an
opportunity to be heard. And I want to thank my colleagues,
both Senator Casey and Senator Whitehouse, for their good work
on this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Portman [presiding]. We have about 8 minutes left
on this vote, and I think what is going to happen is, Senator
Grassley is going to come back so we can continue the
conversation, and then there are two more votes after that. So
we will have to take a break probably after that return. But in
the meantime, hopefully we will have a chance quickly to get
through some of our questions.
Let me ask you a little about the digital services tax,
because this is one that you have already had to deal with as
General Counsel, and I want to hear from Brian on it as well.
But you are going to be much more steeped in this.
I notice that USTR recently decided to pursue a 301
investigation regarding the digital services tax, which I think
is a good idea, and I generally commend it. Can you talk a
little about why USTR and Treasury have such a strong interest
in this, what the fairness aspects are, and what the likely
resolution is?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, thank you for that question, and I
appreciated the chairman's comments on this as well. The
interest and concern that the Senate has shown on this topic
have not gone unnoticed at the Treasury.
The advent of these unilateral digital service taxes in
countries like France, which is at the forefront of this
movement, is deeply troubling to us. We all recognize that the
digitization of commerce has led to challenges to the
traditional system of taxation and allocation of taxing rights
among countries.
But the idea that the solution to that is to impose a
unilateral digital services tax by individual countries that
is--when you look at the formulation and effect that we would
expect to have as deeply discriminatory against the U.S.
companies, and in particular large United States tech
companies, indeed, it is impossible to look at that tax without
believing that it is targeted directly at them.
That to us is deeply troubling. And so we are, as the
chairman referenced, pursuing a two-track strategy here. One is
that all available actions, all available authorities that we
and the U.S. Trade Representative have, are on the table,
including the 301 investigation of France's attacks.
So we are willing to pursue those sorts of punitive
measures. Separately, we are working with the OECD, and there
was some encouraging movement I think at the G7 ministerial
last week, to ensure that we, on a global basis, come to a
consensus-based solution for taxation of digital services.
And we would be hopeful that that sort of solution,
although it takes time to get lots of countries on board, would
obviate the need and the urge of these countries to move
forward with unilateral taxes, as I think we have seen, for
example, Australia step back in favor of the multilateral
effort.
Senator Portman. Well, I think it is very important that
you are well-versed on this as you go into this position, and I
think that is going to give us a big advantage. Because I think
you are right: putting it in a multilateral context, including
the G20 context, probably makes sense for us, OECD as well. You
know, it is difficult to get a consensus among all the parties,
but the United States, I think, needs to be willing to promote
that multilateral approach. And that will be, as you said,
something that otherwise will target our tech companies where
we have a comparative advantage.
I have also heard--and Brian, you can comment on this--that
it may not be just tech companies, that there is talk about
targeting consumer goods companies as well. That tends to,
again, prejudice our interests and our exports and our
investments.
Any thoughts on that, Mr. Callanan, and your interests on
this issue?
Mr. Callanan. Sure, Senator; sure. From a legal
perspective, I think the effort that we have undertaken on an
interagency basis is to ensure that policymakers, the
Secretary, and others understand and have access to the full
range of legal tools that Congress has given us to deal with
efforts targeting any sector of the U.S. economy on a
unilateral basis for discriminatory tax treatment.
I think, as my colleague described, the Secretary has been
encouraged by some discussions last week, but we remain focused
on ensuring that we have all the legal tools we need to prevent
targeting of U.S. businesses unilaterally by foreign tax
authorities. And we have explained, I think, to Chairman
Grassley and Senator Wyden that we are reviewing all of those
options on an interagency basis, and it is a high priority.
Senator Portman. Again, these are complicated issues in the
global economy--increasingly complicated and digitized, as Mr.
McIntosh said--and I am delighted that both of you are going to
be so engaged and involved, because you do understand it, and
it is complicated. China as well creates huge challenges right
now, even outside of the ongoing negotiations with regard to
the trade disputes on some of these tough issues on a non-
market economy basis that really do not fit neatly into our
existing trade laws.
So I am glad both of you are well-versed in that and are
capable of jumping right into it.
To my colleagues, we now have just a couple of minutes for
the vote. I am going to go to Senator Casey, who is next, and
then again I think Senator Grassley is going to come back and
will continue this, and then we will take a break for the next
two votes.
Senator Casey?
Senator Casey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panel for being here, for your willingness to put yourself
forward for public service. I know that is true of several of
you for more than one occasion.
I wanted to start with Mr. McGuire, in particular regarding
a letter which I think staff raised with you in preparation for
the hearing. This is a letter dated April the 1st of this year
from Senator Wyden and from me. This was directed to the
Treasury Secretary.
This is an issue of responsiveness or, more accurately,
lack of responsiveness. I do not know if you want to have the
letter in front of you before answering a question. We can
provide that to you.
Mr. McGuire. Yes.
Senator Casey. Yes, and I will have the letter passed down
to you. Here is the first sentence of the letter. It says
``Dear Secretary Mnuchin, we write to request clarification on
recent and past sworn testimony to the Finance Committee.'' And
then it goes on to describe statements that he made regarding
the impact of the 2017 tax bill. We refer to two dates and two
instances of testimony.
One was February 14, 2018, on the fiscal year 2019 budget.
And then almost, right around a year later, March 14, 2019,
regarding the fiscal year 2020 budget. So we asked for a
response, because I believe--and I think an objective observer
would believe as well--that there is a conflict for sure
between his testimony at those two dates, testimony under oath,
and I believe there is a misrepresentation.
So my question to you is based upon a couple of concerns.
One is the potential misrepresentation under oath. Two, a
failure by him to correct the record. And then third, the
response which was provided on April the 18th by the Deputy
Assistant Secretary of the Office of Legislative Affairs.
Now that you are seeking this post, I would ask you to
commit and assure us--not only assure me and assure Senator
Wyden--that Secretary Mnuchin will correct the record as it
relates to either his responses to Senator Wyden or to me. And
I think that is a reasonable request, when two members of the
committee of jurisdiction ask for a direct response regarding
testimony under oath, and not testimony about a trivial matter.
So I would ask for your assurance to work with us to get that
response directly from the Secretary.
Mr. McGuire. Senator, you have my assurance that I will
take this concern back to the building. There are a couple of
offices within Treasury that we work with on questions like
this, and I will take your concerns back and our staff will be
in touch with yours on the topic.
Senator Casey. Would you agree with me that the response so
far has been inadequate?
Mr. McGuire. I would have to study the issue more closely,
but I am not the expert on this. The Office of Tax Analysis and
the Office of Economic Analysis would be better-suited to
answering that question.
Senator Casey. Well I hope, apart from the substance, I
would hope you would agree that when two members of the United
States Senate committee of jurisdiction send a letter to the
Secretary, that the Secretary in fact responds. I hope that
would be your policy going forward.
Mr. Chairman, I know you asked a number of questions at the
outset about responsiveness, and I will catch up with you
regarding the exact nature of this, but I hope you will work
with us on the responsiveness of the Treasury Secretary to a
letter sent to him in April by both Senator Wyden and me. So I
am just asking for that consideration.
Second, I know we are almost out of time. I can submit some
questions for the record. This is for Mr. Callanan. This is
regarding the so-called dark money revenue procedure 2018-38.
Two weeks ago on the 9th of July, roughly 2 weeks ago, my staff
asked you to provide information as to whether Treasury's
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, so-called FinCEN, was
consulted prior to this change in disclosure to the IRS of
large donors to dark money organizations and other nonprofits.
We have not received a response. I should say, we had not
until today we received a response. But I would ask you this:
we just got the response today. We are studying that. I do not
think it is adequate. That is my initial impression. But was
FinCEN consulted prior to making this change in disclosure
requirements for large donors to dark money groups?
Mr. Callanan. Senator, thanks for that question. I think
the letter you are referring to dealt with IRS CI, and I know
the IRS responded on that yesterday, that the lawyers for the
criminal tax function and the Office of Chief Counsel were
consulted. They did review Revenue Procedure 2018-38. And the
conclusion was reached from a tax administration perspective
that no component of IRS needed the information affected by
that revenue procedure to be reported on the annual return for
tax administration purposes.
With respect to FinCEN, I can tell you that it is my
understanding that FinCEN does not make use of 6103 information
in general, and that the legal path for FinCEN to access and
use that information is exceedingly narrow.
Senator Casey. So FinCEN was not consulted?
Mr. Callanan. I actually do not know whether FinCEN was
part of the agency-clearing process, but we can certainly look
into that.
Senator Casey. Thanks very much.
The Chairman. I am going to delay my questioning so I can
go to Senator Cortez Masto. But, Senator Hassan, have you voted
yet?
Senator Hassan. I just voted.
The Chairman. Okay. Go ahead, and then you can go vote.
Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I appreciate
that. Let me reiterate, Mr. McGuire, the concerns I think we
have heard with a lack of response from the administration. So
I just want to make sure that, on the record, I have similar
concerns and appreciate your commitment and all of your
comments to responding to the requests from the committee,
making sure that they are appropriate, professional, and timely
responses. So thank you.
I think you already did that at the very beginning. Let me
just say ``congratulations'' to all of you on your nominations.
Congratulations to all the family that is here. It is okay to
smile. We are not that bad. [Laughter.]
But let me ask a couple of things. Mr. McIntosh, the office
you are nominated for leads Treasury's engagement on trade
negotiations, as we have heard, and heads up Treasury's role in
bilateral discussions with China.
To your knowledge, is the administration discussing Chinese
Internet censorship and the challenges it poses for U.S.
businesses operating in China, as part of its current talks?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, thank you for that question. I am
afraid I do not know the answer to that. Treasury's role is to
lead negotiations with regard to financial services,
including--except as to insurance and as to currency. The
question you raised is not one that is within our----
Senator Cortez Masto. Jurisdiction to be involved with?
Mr. McIntosh. Our jurisdiction's bailiwick, if you will.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay; thank you.
Let me ask Mr. Callanan, and this may be for both of you--
and jumping back to the Treasury Department's issue of the
revenue procedure on 2018-38, I am curious. Can you tell me,
prior to issuing that, as the Treasury Department prepared this
analysis and research and moving forward, can you identify for
us, was the Department lobbied at all by anybody on the outside
for that change?
Mr. Callanan. Senator, I am aware of a public letter or two
that was received----
Senator Cortez Masto. A public letter that was received
from the outside in response to the change?
Mr. Callanan. I believe there was a public letter that I am
aware of. Maybe I should begin by just being clear. The role of
the Office of General Counsel is one that is a review of
guidance documents for consistency with statutory authority.
This revenue procedure you have described was a tax
administration decision that is committed to the Commissioner.
But with respect--I do know from the public record that
there was a public letter from a number of 501(c) organizations
on this issue, which I believe has been provided in response to
at least one letter from a member of this committee.
In addition, I do know that there were inquiries on this
issue from other members of Congress, including Senator
Johnson.
Senator Cortez Masto. Okay. Thank you, very much.
And, Mr. Greaves, I do not want you to be left out. Let me
ask you this. There was discussion with respect to the ABA and
the lack of a response from the ABA. Do you care to address
that?
Mr. Greaves. I cannot comment on why the ABA did not send a
letter. But I can tell you, I have more than a decade of tax
controversy experience as an attorney advisor at the U.S. Tax
Court, as a private practitioner, as an adjunct faculty member
at Georgetown University Law Center, and now as the Deputy
Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice in
charge of all appeals from the United States Tax Court. And
through these experiences, working at the Court and in private
practice, I became very familiar with the rules and procedures
of the Court.
I also learned the types of cases that are filed at the
Court. And I gained really an understanding for the level of
patience and respect that judges must show litigants before the
Court.
Senator Cortez Masto. And I am assuming the judges who are
in the audience, all the judges you have worked with over the
years, have come here in support of you?
Mr. Greaves. Some I have worked with, and some have been
friends in the tax community, and I have a great, great, great
deal of respect for them.
Senator Cortez Masto. Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you;
congratulations.
The Chairman. I have not had my first round, so I will do
that, and then of people who are here, it would be this order:
Mr. Whitehouse, and then Cassidy, and then Hassan.
Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Callanan, Treasury and IRS have
released a significant amount of guidance over the past 18
months to help the taxpayers comply with the Tax Cut and Jobs
Act. In some instances, agencies have released guidance that
some have argued has been unfavorable to the taxpayers, while
others have argued that certain guidance has been too favorable
to taxpayers.
I would like to give you both an opportunity to describe
your current role in reviewing the draft guidance prepared by
IRS and Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and the process that
you followed in analyzing the agency's rulemaking.
Specifically, I would like you to comment on how the statute's
legislative history and other factors, including stakeholder
input, entered into the equation for analyzing the authority to
issue regulatory and other guidance. Either one can start.
Mr. McIntosh. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that question. I
should begin by saying that the task of drafting the regulatory
guidance resulting from the tax reform bill has been a
Herculean effort undertaken by the IRS Chief Counsel's office
and the Office of Tax Policy at Treasury, which are constituted
from some of the best tax lawyers anywhere in the country.
Our role in the Office of General Counsel is to assure
ourselves that we believe there is statutory authority to
undertake the guidance that they put out. And when we think
about that question, our goal is to carry out congressional
intent as it is manifested in the text and structure of the
statute.
So when the policy folks at the IRS and at the Office of
Tax Policy look at the question of what guidance is necessary,
they hear from stakeholders--whether it is taxpayers--they hear
from members on the Hill. We undertake our own analysis as to
where guidance is necessary.
And then, once the policy offices determine that the
guidance is necessary, we then look at the text of the statute,
which is the best evidence of congressional intent, and the
structure of the statute, because the tax code is sufficiently
complex that it never makes sense in the tax code to read a
provision in isolation. You always need to understand where it
interacts with other parts of the tax code.
We look at the explanations that members have given as to
what the purpose of the provision was, and we look at the
grants of authority that the IRS has and that Treasury has to
promulgate guidance--because there are often explicit grants of
authority--to assure ourselves that what we are doing is both
sufficient to facilitate the efficient administration of the
tax code, and consistent with our statutory authorities.
The Chairman. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I can improve on
my colleague's description. I would just add to that that the
notice and comment process is very valuable. You know, we have
issued 28 NPRMs; 11 of those have gone to final.
The comment process allows us to get the best input on
legal and policy questions presented. And I think one virtue of
the approach that Treasury has taken is we do not--we go
through this with an open mind. And we are always open to
finding ways to refine and improve from proposed to final rule.
And an important part of that process is hearing from members
of this committee. We receive many comment letters from members
of this committee, including some of the architects of TCJA--
also a very valuable part of both the policy and legal process.
The Chairman. Mr. Greaves, as a Tax Court judge you will
preside over many cases that involve unsophisticated taxpayers
with few resources to deploy while making their case. 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?
Mr. Greaves. Mr. Chairman, I believe that all parties,
taxpayers and the government, should be treated with courtesy
and respect in the courtroom, and that judges should act
promptly in addressing issues that are brought before the
Court.
Now, in my experience working at the Tax Court and in
private practice representing pro bono clients, I know that
most of these folks have never stepped foot in a courtroom and
lack any legal education.
So I would make sure that they know--if confirmed, I would
make sure that they know that they have opportunities for pro
bono counsel. The Tax Court has done an excellent job working
with low-income taxpayer clinics. And I would also inform them
of the Court's rules of practice and procedures, many of which
are designed with pro se litigants in mind.
And I would assure them that I would keep an open mind,
that I would be attentive to each party's arguments, and that I
would diligently work to apply the laws enacted by Congress to
the facts established in the case.
The Chairman. Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The chairman
and I have legislation in the Judiciary Committee to try to put
a little bit of sunlight into the problem of U.S. shell
corporations. It enjoys the super-tedious nomenclature of
``beneficial ownership,'' but I recall from our conversations
and assume both Mr. Callanan and Mr. McIntosh still agree that
these shell corporations provide shelters for tax evasion.
Correct?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, we do believe that, in many
instances, that is the case.
Senator Whitehouse. For money laundering?
Mr. Callanan. I think the Secretary has made clear that he
agrees we need additional financial transparency into shell
companies for precisely some of those concerns.
Senator Whitehouse. For hiding assets, including proceeds
of criminal activity?
Mr. Callanan. I think those are among the illicit finance
concerns that are driving our interest in reform here.
Senator Whitehouse. And for kleptocrats who loot their
countries and then hide the proceeds of their looting overseas,
correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That is another of the reasons why we support
reform in this space.
Senator Whitehouse. And I think you all understand that
this involves America's national reputation if you are, as I
believe we are, a city on a hill. It is hard, also, to be a big
sleazy Cayman Islands in which the worst people in the world
can hide their looted assets. Correct?
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. One of the things that shell
corporations can get up to is to be involved in political
influence efforts. Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg, testified recently
in the Judiciary Committee that his vaunted new and improved
regime for figuring out who was buying political ads on
Facebook would stop at the first nominal buyer.
So if that were the case, is it not true that a foreign
actor could be behind that U.S. shell corporation and be the
true beneficial owner and the true party in interest with
respect to that political influence buying?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, I am not familiar with Mr.
Zuckerberg's testimony, but that sounds----
Senator Whitehouse. The logic of it is pretty apparent, is
it not?
Mr. McIntosh. It does seem correct to me, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse. And if an avenue allows anonymity to
somebody seeking to buy political influence, is there any way
that you can protect that avenue from being used by foreign
influencers?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, certainly the transparency work that
we have been working on collaboratively, we think, is a way of
stopping that problem.
Senator Whitehouse. And my point here is that, if you allow
a regime of political influence for anonymous actors, there is
by definition no way to know that foreign actors are not taking
advantage of that anonymous channel. Correct?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, I would hesitate to say there is no
way, given our very robust law enforcement and intelligence
services. But certainly it makes it more difficult.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, let us just say that there is
certainly no way to know from looking at the channels.
Mr. McIntosh. I believe that is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. So you would need to have, say,
intelligence in the foreign country that revealed to the
intelligence community a scheme to buy influence. But, at a
minimum, it is true that allowing channels for anonymous
political spending into America's political system creates a
problem and a challenge both for law enforcement and for
protecting our system from foreign influence.
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, I am not an expert in the election
laws, but that certainly seems a reasonable conjecture to me.
Senator Whitehouse. It is almost indisputable, is it not?
Mr. McIntosh. Yes.
Senator Whitehouse. Mr. Callanan?
Mr. Callanan. I am--I too am not an expert in Federal
election law. I know with respect to cross-border transactions
that of course FinCEN is a repository of reports about
suspicious transactions, including cross-border transactions.
But I really could not comment on the Federal election law
aspect of this. It is not within Treasury's remit.
Senator Whitehouse. But you do not disagree with the
principle that once you allow anonymous means of influence--
which frankly does not have to be election law--once you allow
for anonymous political influence, you cannot keep out foreign
anonymous political influence. You do know it is foreign by
virtue of it being anonymous. Is that not a logical sequitur?
Mr. Callanan. Having not studied the issue, I am sort of
limited in being able to opine on it. But there is a logic to
what you have described. All that I am pointing out is, I am
also aware that there is, in addition to affirmative reporting
by organizations, there is of course financial intelligence
work that is done by agencies such as FinCEN to track
transactions.
But I do not question the logic of the point you have made.
Senator Whitehouse. Yes. And the point I would conclude
with, Mr. Chairman, is--and this is an equal opportunity
criticism, because the Obama administration was equally weak
and helpless on this point. But the fact that we are
maintaining, under the IRS in the U.S. Government, means
through which entities can become anonymous channels for
political influence, with no provision for keeping foreign
influence out of it by virtue of--I guess we love the anonymity
for the sake of big special interests when they are domestic,
but it is really wrong, and it is really dangerous, and we have
to clean it up. And that is the point that I wanted to make.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry I went over.
The Chairman. I agree with you.
Senator Hassan?
Senator Hassan. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want
to thank you and Ranking Member Wyden for holding this hearing.
To all four of our nominees, congratulations on your
nominations, and thank you and your families for your
willingness to serve. To the families here, thank you for
sharing your loved ones with the people of this country in the
work that they do.
Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Callanan, I want to follow up on a
line of questioning you have heard from some of my colleagues.
I would like to ask you about the Treasury Department's
decision to roll back disclosure requirements for donations to
nonprofit lobbying groups.
I want you to understand the context that I am coming at
this from. Big pharma fueled the opioid crisis in New Hampshire
and across this country by funding nonprofits that then spread
fraudulent misinformation about addiction. Now, because of
Treasury's decision, many of these nonprofits no longer have to
disclose who their donors are to the IRS.
In effect, the Treasury has hamstrung law enforcement's
ability to follow the money and hold pharma accountable for
fraud. However, despite these serious concerns, Treasury issued
this decision without any public notice or comment period.
So let me start by asking you, Mr. McIntosh, is it correct
that, as Treasury General Counsel, you signed off on issuing
this decision without any public notice or comment period?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, that was a determination made at the
Internal Revenue Service. I was aware that it was going to be
issued, but it ultimately was not my decision as to whether to
do it, pursuant to the Commissioner's authority to relieve
reporting requirements by form or regulation.
Senator Hassan. So I am finding it a little bit hard to
believe that you were not consulted or asked to sign off, but I
take it from your answer that you think the Treasury acted
within its authority in issuing this decision without public
notice?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, that is a subject that is currently
in litigation, so I am hesitant----
Senator Hassan. Right.
Mr. McIntosh [continuing]. To go beyond the bridge. But
there is a long tradition of the Commissioner of the Internal
Revenue Service relieving reporting requirements without notice
and comment, and indeed the regulation in question explicitly
gave him that right. And there is a long tradition in the Obama
and Clinton administrations of doing the same.
So this is a longstanding authority of the Commissioner.
Senator Hassan. And I understand that, but to your point
about it being in litigation, there are two States represented
by colleagues of mine on this committee who are suing the
Treasury for violating the law by failing to provide public
notice of this decision. And I understand Treasury is
contesting that. But I just want it on the record that two
States are suing because of this decision.
Mr. McIntosh. That is correct.
Senator Hassan. Now, Mr. Callanan, as Deputy General
Counsel at Treasury, did you sign off on issuing this decision
without any public notice?
Mr. Callanan. Senator, thank you for the question. The
analysis on this regulatory action, like all tax regulatory
actions, is done in the first instance by our Office of Tax
Policy and by the Office of IRS Chief Counsel.
I reviewed the analysis that they did on both the
substantive and procedural issues associated with this guidance
document--again, as I do with respect to dozens of IRS tax
actions. And I was comfortable with the substantive and
procedural legal considerations that it was within the
statutory authority.
I think the concerns you are describing, Senator, are
questions of policy and tax administration, which are committed
by law to the Commissioner and really are not a question for
the Office of General Counsel.
Senator Hassan. I thank you for the answer. I will note
that when this decision was made and the change was made, it
was both Treasury and the IRS that put out a press release that
said this was significant reform.
So I also just want to bring you both to focus on the fact
that there is a reason that Congress requires public notice. It
is so that rules cannot be changed behind closed doors to favor
special interests.
If you all had followed the law, or even if you do not
think it was legally required, had exercised caution and
perhaps a little bit of restraint here, you would have heard
concerns about holding big pharma accountable in tracking down
dark money donations, and perhaps you all might have made a
different decision. That is the whole purpose of public
comment.
And now I am faced, like so many others all across this
country, with the fact that it is now going to be much harder,
when these kinds of interest groups are funded, to catch the
bad actors and hold them accountable.
I want to move on to one other issue. Mr. McIntosh, as head
of the Office of International Affairs, you would be
responsible for Treasury's efforts to strengthen U.S. economic
ties with other countries to investment and trade agreements.
That includes advancing our economic dialogue with China.
I have heard from many New Hampshire businesses about the
important economic issues we need to resolve with China,
including intellectual property protection, competition from
state-owned enterprises, and forced technology transfer. At the
same time, many small businesses in my State are hurting from
the administration's tariffs on Chinese goods and the
uncertainty about the White House's strategy on China.
As the Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs,
what would be your strategy for working with China to resolve
economic issues while providing certainty to small businesses?
What immediate steps would you take to implement this strategy?
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Senator. It is a terribly
important question. I should note that my role as Under
Secretary, were I to be confirmed, is limited to certain
aspects of those trade negotiations, which are primarily led by
the United States Trade Representative.
I think that the key aspect of our negotiations with China,
as the Secretary and others have said, is that there are a
series of
market-distorting practices you have described: non-market
practices, forced technology transfer, forced joint ventures,
the lack of respect for intellectual property rights. And
ensuring that those aspects of any trade negotiation are
captured in an agreement in a way that is transparent and
enforceable, would be the substantive priority.
Procedurally, we would want to be pushing forward
aggressively, as the Secretary and Ambassador Lighthizer are
doing, on securing the agreement. It has to be the primary
priority we face.
And also I would note that a key aspect of this effort is
ensuring that our foreign partners understand our concerns and
are willing to stand up in multilateral forums and in their
bilateral negotiations with the Chinese and highlight the same
concerns that we have.
Because I can tell you that, quietly in the background,
they share these concerns. We need to present a unified front
against the practices in question.
Senator Hassan. Well, I thank you for that answer. I raised
some of these same issues with our Trade Representative when he
was here a few weeks ago. I just want to reiterate how
important it is that the administration take into account the
impact of trade uncertainty on small businesses. And, if
confirmed, I hope you will remain focused on promoting economic
dialogue with China, but in particular making sure that there
is some level of predictability and certainty for our small
business community during what is a turbulent time.
Mr. McIntosh. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hassan. Thank you.
The Chairman. This is how we are going to end this meeting.
I am going to go vote. Senator Cassidy is the last person to
ask questions, and he will close the meeting down. But I want
to thank all of you for your attendance and participation
today. I thank the panel for their willingness to serve in
their respective roles. And, as is usual practice, I ask that
any members who wish to submit questions for the record to
please do so by close of business Friday, July 26th. And you
folks who are nominees should try to answer those questions as
quickly as you can so we can take action on your nominations.
So I thank you all for participating, and I thank Senator
Cassidy for the willingness to close down the meeting so I can
go vote.
Senator Cassidy [presiding]. I thank you all, gentlemen.
This is Irish Day. As one Irish guy to a bunch of other Irish
guys, congratulations on escaping the Island. [Laughter.]
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, candor requires me to disclose that
I am Scottish. [Laughter.]
Senator Cassidy. Well, there is hope for you. [Laughter.]
So, listen, Mr. McIntosh, I am very concerned about trade-
based money laundering. I have been speaking to folks from
England or Britain who are similarly concerned. And if you
will, cartels are moving tens of billions of dollars out of our
country through Latin America, sometimes to West Africa, then
to Lebanon, to subvert democratic institutions, to fund Boko
Haram, to support Hezbollah and their activities, et cetera.
There is evidence that the Iranians are using trade-based
money laundering to circumvent the sanctions that we have
placed upon them as a source of capital. I could go on, but
now, any thoughts about what can be done to address this?
Mr. McIntosh. Senator, thanks for that question. It is a
very important issue and one that we at Treasury are focused
on.
My colleagues in the Terrorism and Financial Intelligence
Under Secretariat are focused in particular on using sanctions
to shut down many of these avenues that you discuss.
It is not--trade-based money laundering in particular has
not been a topic that has been in my bailiwick as General
Counsel, but I would expect that, if I were confirmed as Under
Secretary, it would be an important part of my early engagement
with our foreign partners to ensure that they see the threat
and are willing to work with us on sanctions and other
financial intelligence tools.
Senator Cassidy. So let me, just in the interests of time,
let me say that I am not sure that it is our foreign partners.
I speak to foreign partners. They are into it. I have spoken to
the Guatemalans, the Mexicans, the Argentines, the Brits--they
all recognize this as an issue.
But you know, to channel Pogo, we have met the enemy, and
he is us. It seems as if--and I am told, whenever I say this,
and I cannot believe it is true, but I am always assured that
it is true--that there is so limited communication between
Treasury and CBP that when there is a trade deal that occurs, a
legitimate trade deal or an illegitimate trade deal, there is
no coordination between the manifest and the invoice.
Now whenever I say that, I am thinking, ``This cannot be
true.'' But whenever I say it, people say, ``Yes, it is true.''
So, okay, I am shipping a container of rice and getting dollars
back. But it might be a double invoice, a triple invoice, a
misinvoice, it may not be rice. It may be sawdust. So there is
no value in it. But the absence of a connection means that it
is the way that $60 billion to $100 billion are allegedly moved
out through trade-based money laundering.
Now I do not know if anyone else--obviously this is a tax
issue, but it is a tax issue that has to be brought before the
Tax Court, I suppose, and probably more of a criminal case, but
I do not know if any of the others have thoughts, but this is
what I have been focused on.
And I mention this, but also in the Senate, it is
transjurisdictional. It is Banking, Homeland Security, it is
Treasury, it is Judiciary, it is Finance, and maybe one or two
others.
So just to toss that to you, to say that this will be
something that is related to the beneficial ownership that
Senator Whitehouse raised, but not limited to that. And we do
think that it is a way to advance our foreign policy objective
of stabilizing Central American governments.
One more point, just for reference. If there is a shipment
of goods going from the U.S. to Guatemala, the invoice goes
through Panama, and the invoice is marked down by 50 percent,
then Guatemala misses out on that duty it would have received
and therefore has less money to invest in infrastructure,
therefore less attraction for foreign direct development,
therefore fewer jobs, therefore more people joining a caravan
coming to McAllen, TX.
So you see the kind of----
Mr. McIntosh. I do, Senator. And that is a topic on which I
would be eager to work with you and your staff and other
members of the committee to address. It is, as I said, not one
that has confronted us in the Office of General Counsel during
my time here, but it is a terribly important issue, and it is
one on which we do need to get our house in order.
Senator Cassidy. But this would be part of your
jurisdiction, if you are confirmed?
Mr. McIntosh. Part of it would fall within the Terrorism
and Financial Intelligence Under Secretary that is ably led by
my colleague Sigal Mandelker. But I expect, as well, that when
we are negotiating with foreign countries over these and
raising our concerns, whether it is bilaterally or in
multilateral forums, that would fall within my
responsibilities, and I would be eager to work with you on it.
Senator Cassidy. That sounds good. I think we have a mutual
friend. He has already doxed you. And so we will be able to
track you down and make sure we have your cooperation.
[Laughter.]
We are through. The hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:18 p.m., the hearing was concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Brian Callanan, Nominated to be
General Counsel, Department of the Treasury
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am honored
to be the President's nominee to serve as General Counsel for the
Treasury Department, and I am grateful to Secretary Mnuchin for his
confidence.
I am pleased to be joined today by my extraordinary wife Amanda,
who wisely warned me that our 10-month-old son Charlie may not have the
deportment required for a Senate hearing. I'm also joined by my mother,
who was a public school teacher for many years and my first teacher. I
only regret that my late father, whom we lost to cancer in May, is not
here today. My dad was a career civil servant. He devoted his entire
professional life to public service--starting out as a juvenile
probation officer in the New Jersey court system, and concluding his
career working for the U.S. Agency for International Development to
improve the civil and criminal justice systems of other nations across
four continents. Both of my parents encouraged my own early interest in
public service.
It is a particular honor to come as a nominee before this
committee, where I had the opportunity to sit on the other side of the
dais when I worked for Senator Portman. I learned a lot from his steady
example of integrity and civility. My time as a lawyer in the U.S.
Senate was a formative experience for me. It taught me a great deal
about the legislative process, the significant role of congressional
oversight, and the importance of mutual trust and respect between the
executive branch and Congress. Should I be confirmed, I will strive to
ensure that Treasury continues to be responsive to congressional needs
and inquiries.
Government lawyers are, in a special way, stewards of the
institutions that we serve. Every agency of our government--even one
with a seal that reads 1789, as Treasury's does--is ultimately a
creature of legislative enactment. As I see it, the role of the
Treasury General Counsel is to ensure that the Department acts in
fidelity to law and fulfills the statutory responsibilities entrusted
to us--ever mindful that the laws we implement will long outlast us.
Treasury's responsibilities are vast and varied. From implementing
our tax code to administering our Nation's finances, from protecting
the integrity of our financial system to deploying American's financial
might to combat global threats, the Treasury Department is engaged
every day in work that is vital to the prosperity and security of our
Nation. And that work generates no shortage of complex, difficult legal
questions.
Fortunately, the Department is home to some of the finest, most
dedicated lawyers anywhere in the country--the Treasury Legal Division.
Under one roof, we have a legal team with deep and wide expertise in
areas of law as diverse as tax, economic sanctions, financial
regulation, international development, trade, public finance, and much
more.
It has been a distinct privilege to work shoulder to shoulder with
these serious and skilled lawyers throughout my service as Deputy
General Counsel and as Acting General Counsel during a critical
transition period. If confirmed, I would be honored to lead this
remarkable group of public servants and to continue to work closely
with them on the important issues in which Treasury is engaged. If
confirmed, I commit to perform my responsibilities with integrity and
humility--and always with a devotion to the Constitution and laws under
which all of us serve.
I look forward to your questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Brian Richard Callanan.
2. Position to which nominated: General Counsel, Department of the
Treasury.
3. Date of nomination: May 23, 2019.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: January 18, 1981; Willingboro, NJ.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Harvard Law School (2005-2008), J.D., May 2008.
Claremont McKenna College (1999-2003), B.A., May 2003.
Palmyra Public High School (1995-1999), high school diploma,
June 1999.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Deputy General Counsel, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
Washington, DC (March 2017-present); Acting General Counsel
(March 2017-August 2017).
Litigation partner, Cooper and Kirk PLLC, Washington, DC
(January-March 2017).
Staff Director And General Counsel, U.S. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, Washington, DC (March 2015-
January 2017).
Litigation associate, King and Spalding LLP, Washington, DC
(2013-2015).
General Counsel, Office of Senator Rob Portman, Washington, DC
(2011-2013).
Litigation associate, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher LLP,
Washington, DC (2009-2011).
Law clerk, Hon. A. Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the DC Circuit, Washington, DC (2008-2009).
Summer associate, Cooper and Kirk PLLC, Washington, DC (Summer
2008).
Summer associate, Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher LLP, Washington,
DC (Summer 2007).
Summer associate, Cooper and Kirk PLLC, Washington, DC (Summer
2006).
Speech writer and legislative assistant, Senator Olympia Snowe,
Washington, DC (2003-2005) (with separation in service
September 2004-November 2004).
Press Secretary, New Jersey Republican State Committee,
Trenton, NJ (September 2004-November 2004).
Legislative correspondent, Representative Jim Saxton,
Washington, DC (2003).
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
Administrative Conference of the United States, Government
member (2017-present).
Informal advisor to Romney-Ryan Readiness Project (2012).
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partners, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Partner, Cooper and Kirk PLLC.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, business, charitable, and other organizations dating back to
college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
To the best of my recollection, I am or have been a member of
the following organizations:
American Bar Association, Section on Administrative Law and
Regulation, member (approx. 2012-2016); Legislative Branch
Liaison for the Section on Administrative Law and Regulation
(2012-2013); co-chair of the Rulemaking Committee (approx.
2014-2015).
Federalist Society, member (approx. 2008-present);
Administrative Law and Regulation Practice Group, Executive
Committee member (2013-2017).
St. Peters Church on Capitol Hill, Washington, DC (approx.
2015-present).
Cathedral of St. Matthew, Washington, DC (approx. 2010-2015).
University Club of Washington, DC (approx. 2007-2009).
Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy (approx. 2005-2008);
articles editor (2007-2008).
Harvard Federalist Society (2005-2008).
Winston Churchill Society of Claremont McKenna College (approx.
2001-2003).
Bar admissions: State of New York Bar (admitted 2009); State of
New Jersey Bar (admitted 2009); District of Columbia Bar
(admitted 2010); U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit
(admitted 2010); U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
(admitted approx. 2014); U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia (admitted approx. 2013); Supreme Court of New
Jersey (admitted 2009); Court of Appeals of New York (admitted
2009); DC Court of Appeals (admitted 2010).
13. Political affiliation and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
Based on a search of my records and public records, I have made
the following such contributions:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Date Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elise Stefanik for Congress 12/30/13 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton for Senate 10/29/13 $500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton for Congress 9/19/12 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Cotton for Congress 9/20/11 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Laxalt for Attorney General (NV) 7/16/14 $250
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, I believe I made a small contribution to Governor
Tim Pawlenty's presidential campaign in 2012 and to Senator
Marco Rubio's presidential campaign in 2016, but I have been
unable to locate any record of those contributions.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
McKenna Scholar, Claremont McKenna College (1999-2003).
McKenna International Fellowship, to participate in summer
service project in Uganda, East Africa (2002).
Harrison Fellowship, Claremont McKenna College (2002-2003).
First in class in major--government, Claremont McKenna College
(2003).
Phi Beta Kappa, Claremont McKenna College (2003).
Harvard Cravath International Fellowship (2008).
Lincoln Fellowship, Claremont Institute (2009).
High school valedictorian (1999).
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
To the best of my recollection, the following is a complete
list of my published writings:
Written interview with Politico Playbook, ``Birthday of the
Week,'' January 18, 2018, https://www.politco.com/story/2018/
01/18/playbook-birthday-brian-call
anan-345497.
``Justice League International,'' The Claremont Review of
Books, Summer 2016 (review of ``The Court and The World,'' by
Justice Stephen Breyer) (title supplied by editor), https://
www.claremont.org/crb/article/justice-league-international/.
``The Regulatory Budget Revisited,'' The Administrative Law
Review, Fall 2015 (with J. Rosen), https://www.americanbar.org/
content/dam/aba/events/administrative_law/2017/10/
009_regulatory.pdf.
Executive Branch Review Blog, ``D.C. Circuit Tackles
Constitutionality of Regulatory Disclosure Mandates'' (approx.
April 2014). (This blog post, which I wrote for the Federalist
Society, no longer appears to be online.)
``A Legal Poison Pill for the Affordable Care Act,'' The Wall
Street Journal, January 13, 2014 (title supplied by headline-
writer), https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-legal-poison-pill-for-
obamacare-1389660359.
``When Nudge Comes to Shove,'' The Claremont Review of Books,
Summer 2013 (review of ``Simpler'' by Cass Sunstein), https://
www.claremont.org/crb/article/when-nudge-comes-to-shove/.
I also co-authored several staff reports (or portions thereof)
issued by the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations:
PSI Joint Staff Report, Backpage.com's Knowing Facilitation of
Sex Trafficking (2017).
PSI Joint Staff Report, Combatting the Opioid Epidemic: A
Review of Anti-Abuse Efforts in Medicare and Private Health
Insurance Systems (2016).
PSI Joint Staff Report, Protecting Unaccompanied Alien Children
From Trafficking and Other Abuses: The Role of the Office of
Refugee Resettlement (2016).
PSI Majority Staff Report, Failure of the Affordable Car Act
Health Insurance CO-OPs (2016).
PSI Joint Staff Report, Review of U.S. State Department Grants
(2016).
PSI Joint Staff Report, Recommendation to Enforce a Subpoena
Issued to the CEO of Backpage.com, LLC (2015).
PSI Joint Staff Report, Impact of the U.S. Tax Code on the
Market for Corporate Control (2015).
Links to each of these reports can be found on page 19-20 of
this document: https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/
LINKS%20TO%20PSI%20HRG
S-RPTS%20(106-114)%20Updated%202016-12-20.pdf.
In addition, I wrote a few items for which I have no records.
From 2010-2011, I co-wrote a series of client alerts for
Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher titled ``Supreme Court Round-up,''
which summarized pending and recently decided Supreme Court
cases. The firm does not appear to maintain an archive of these
alerts for that time period. I also wrote two articles as a
college student: one article about a college chaplain for a
campus paper, The Claremont Independent, that does not appear
to maintain an archive before 2012, and one article concerning
patriotism for a quarterly campus magazine, The Claremont
Review of Politics, that is out of print and has no archive.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates):
I have not delivered a formal speech or presentation in the
past 5 years.
I have participated in several panel discussions that may be
considered relevant to the position for which I have been
nominated--listed below for the committee's reference:
American Bar Association, The Use and Abuse of Agency
Guidance (panel discussion), July 18, 2014. I served as
moderator.
American Bar Association, Effective Congressional
Oversight (panel discussion), March 15, 2016. As one of four
panelists, I participated in a Q&A-style discussion.
The Federalist Society and Claremont Institute, The
Jurisprudence of Justice Thomas (panel discussion), October 24,
2016. I served as moderator.
Center for the Study of the Administrative State,
Constitutional Problems in Financial Regulation (panel
discussion); December 9, 2016. I served as moderator.
New York University Journal of Law and Liberty, The
Administrative State Meets the Tech Economy (panel discussion),
February 28, 2019. As one of five panelists, I participated in
Q&A and summarized Treasury's 2018 report on financial
technology.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
I believe my prior service in the executive, legislative, and
judicial branches and my private-sector experience in complex
litigation and administrative law matters have prepared me for
the responsibilities I would undertake, if confirmed, as
General Counsel of the Department of the Treasury. As Deputy
General Counsel since March 2017 and Acting General Counsel
during a critical 5-month transition period, I have had the
privilege of helping lead a highly skilled team of lawyers in
the Treasury Legal Division dedicated to carrying out the
Department's statutory mission. That experience has deepened my
understanding of the important programmatic and policy
responsibilities that Congress has entrusted to Treasury. In
addition, my more than 4 years as a lawyer in the U.S. Senate
gave me a valuable understanding of the legislative process, a
fluency in several areas of public policy, and an appreciation
for the congressional oversight function. Much of my work in
private practice centered on litigation concerning governmental
actions and policies, and that experience has also proven
valuable in my role as an in-house agency lawyer. Finally, I
have had the opportunity to manage large teams of professionals
on a variety of matters.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
Yes, with the exception of the Department of the Treasury and
the Administrative Conference of the United States.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian Sonfieid, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian Sonfield, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
From 2014-2015, as a lawyer at King and Spalding, I provided
legal services and public policy advice to Howard and Jean
Somers, the parents of an Iraq War veteran who took his own
life after suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and
traumatic brain injury. For this pro bono matter, I served as
the lead associate on a team that assisted our clients with
translating their personal experience into legislative advocacy
concerning reform of the Veterans Administration health-care
system. I also joined the clients for a meeting with then-
Representative Kyrsten Sinema.
In 2010, as a lawyer at Gibson Dunn, I provided legal services
to the Coalition for Derivatives End-Users concerning the
regulatory implementation of title 7 of the Dodd-Frank Wall
Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, including
participating in meetings with career officials from the
Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures
Trading Commission, and the Federal Reserve Board.
In addition, throughout my time in private practice, I drafted
or assisted in drafting legal briefs and legal memoranda for
firm clients in the context of litigation or administrative
agency actions concerning various Federal laws, including the
Dodd-Frank Act; the Sherman Act; the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act; the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act; the
Rail Safety Improvement Act; the National Labor Relations Act;
the Federal Power Act; the Interstate Wire Act; and the Defense
Production Act.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian Sonfield, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
Copies have been provided.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
In January 2009, I received a speeding ticket in Virginia for
driving 82 mph on a 70 mph interstate highway, which is
classified as reckless driving in Virginia. The citation was
reduced to a lesser charge, and I paid the required fine.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5: Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Brian Callanan
Question Submitted by Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin
Question. Section 179D of the internal revenue code provides a
deduction for the cost of providing energy efficient commercial
building investments that meet specific energy standards. This
deduction results in lower building costs for developers, lower energy
costs for building occupants, and a reduced impact on the environment.
In the case of government-owned buildings, the tax deduction is
allowed to be allocated to the person primarily responsible for
designing the property--commonly the architect, engineer or
contractor--in lieu of the government owner of the property,
recognizing that the government generally does not have a tax liability
(IRC 179D(d)(4)). The allocation of the 179D tax deduction is achieved
by a letter from the responsible government official to the designer.
The allocation letter serves a purpose similar to third party
reporting requirements--to inform the IRS as to whether the designer
qualifies for the deduction. It was meant to be administrative in
nature. Congress's decision to allow allocation of the tax deduction to
the designer reflects the policy goal of encouraging the construction
of energy efficient government buildings.
I am troubled by a growing number of complaints I am hearing about
small business owners being required to make payments to State and
local government entities in order to receive this allocation letter.
This practice weakens oversight by the government that ensures that the
correct designer receives the intended benefit for providing energy
efficient services to the government. Even more concerning, in some
cases, these small business owners are being told that if a payment is
not made, the government entity may rescind the allocation letter that
has already been issued and on which the small business owner has
relied upon to file their taxes. Small business owners shouldn't have
to pay a toll to a government entity to receive an allocation letter
for a tax deduction for which they qualify and for which they provided
the services under section 179D. This goes against the longstanding
understanding of the administration of section 179D and congressional
intent.
I ask for you to make it a priority that within 90 days of being
confirmed that Treasury and the IRS will put forward public guidance to
make clear that it is inappropriate for government entities to request,
seek or accept payments for providing an allocation letter under 26
U.S.C. 179D(d)(4).
Answer. Thank you for describing your concerns regarding how the
allocation of the deduction under section 179D(d) has been used to
negotiate for a return benefit to a government entity. Although I have
not had the opportunity to work on this issue, the deduction under
section 179D should be used to fulfill its intended purpose of
encouraging investment in energy efficient commercial property and the
procedures in our existing guidance, Notice 2008-40 and Notice 2006-52,
should be followed to ensure that this intended purpose is properly
extended to government-owned buildings. If confirmed, I will work with
Treasury and IRS staff to evaluate our authority under section 179D to
address the serious concerns you have described.
In addition, I have raised this issue with our Assistant Secretary
for Tax Policy, and he would be pleased to discuss it with you or your
staff if that would be helpful.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
Question. As you know, the Trump tax bill gutted the State and
local tax deduction that 1.8 million New Jerseyans relied on to avoid
being double taxed. New Jersey and other States created State and local
tax incentives for making charitable donations to select non-profits.
These non-profits were created to fill the gaps created by the Trump
tax bill by funding our public schools and universities, rebuilding our
roads and bridges, assisting survivors of domestic abuse, and helping
middle-class families.
State and local programs that award tax credits in exchange for
donations to public and private-sector entities have existed for
decades without interference from the Treasury/IRS. For years, programs
that supported conservative causes were marketed by CPAs in certain
States as a way to reduce a taxpayer's Federal tax liability by
avoiding the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT). One accountant even boasted
``The reason this [State tax credit charitable] program is worthy of
mention for tax planning purposes is . . . shifting itemized deductions
away from State income tax and to charitable deductions will lower
their Federal income tax bill.''\1\ The IRS and Treasury only began
targeting States like New Jersey after implementing their own State tax
incentives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Strike, Brian, ``Charitable Donation and State Tax Credit,''
2016, https://www.
scottkays.com/article/2016/09/20/charitable-donation-state-tax-credit.
Could you describe why the Trump administration took no action and
permitted these State programs that supported conservative causes to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
operate and taxpayers to avoid the Federal AMT?
Answer. As a native New Jerseyan with a large extended family in
New Jersey, I share your interest in treating all taxpayers across all
States fairly.
The preamble to the final regulations, issued in June 2019,
explains why the Treasury Department and the IRS did not previously
issue formal guidance regarding the interaction between section 170 and
State tax credit programs: ``The limitation under section 164(b)(6)
[adopted by Congress in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act] is the impetus for
the Treasury Department's and the IRS's consideration of the tax
treatment of contributions made in exchange for State and local tax
credits. Prior to enactment of that limitation, the proper treatment of
such contributions was of limited significance from a Federal revenue
perspective and tax administration perspective and was therefore never
addressed in formal guidance.''\2\ The final regulations prevent the
use of any State program, no matter the State and no matter the
purpose, to circumvent limitations on Federal tax deductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Department of the Treasury, Final Regulations: Contributions in
Exchange for State and Local Tax Credits, 84 Fed. Reg. 27513 (June 13,
2019), https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2019-06-13/pdf/2019-
12418.pdf.
Question. The IRS's finalized guidance released in June wrongly
ended the ability for States to establish tax incentives for making
charitable donations in New Jersey and other States. To add insult to
injury, the Treasury Department added an exemption in the regulations
to keep existing State tax credit programs that support conservative
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
causes virtually unchanged.
Do you agree that the tax code needs to be implemented fairly
without partisan bias?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If so, if confirmed to the position of the General
Counsel at Treasury, do you commit to reversing course of this
Department's previous bias and apply the tax code equally across the
country?
Answer. I do not believe partisan bias has any place in the
interpretation of our tax laws, and I do not believe partisan bias has
played any role in the promulgation of any tax regulations or other
guidance issued in connection with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. If
confirmed, I can commit to do all that is within my authority to ensure
that no interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code is influenced by
partisan bias.
Title 26 of the U.S. Code generally entrusts regulatory authority
to the Secretary of the Treasury. The Secretary has delegated tax
regulatory policy responsibilities to the Assistant Secretary for Tax
Policy under a longstanding Treasury Department order. The General
Counsel is responsible for reviewing proposed regulations for questions
of law, but the General Counsel does not possess tax regulatory policy
authority under title 26. Consequently, if confirmed, it would not be
within my authority to rescind or revise a final regulation promulgated
under title 26.
Question. Thirty-two members of the House Ways and Means
Committee--Republicans and Democrats--sent a letter to the Treasury
Department last Congress asking it withdraw IRS Notice 2007-55, which
was issued over a decade ago and continues to deter foreign investment
in the United States. The notice relates to the Foreign Investment in
Real Property Tax Act, or FIRPTA. In short, the notice treats certain
distributions from REITs as the sale of REIT assets rather than the
sale of REIT stock. The result is that the distributions are subject to
tax rates as high as 54 percent. The practical effect is to raise the
tax burden on investors in U.S. commercial real estate and
infrastructure to levels that are punitive and prohibitive. Cal-
Berkeley professor and economist Ken Rosen recently estimated that
FIRPTA costs the United States between $65-125 billion in lost
investment and between 147,000-284,000 in lost jobs.\3\ Repealing IRS
Notice 2007-55 is a simple and immediate thing that the administration
could do to boost private investment in U.S. real estate and
infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Rosen, Kenneth T., ``Unlocking Foreign Investment in U.S.
Commercial Real Estate'' (2017).
Please review this matter and provide a written response as to
whether you will repeal section two of the Notice and restore prior
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
law, as dozens of members of Congress have encouraged.
Answer. This question concerns a policy issue, which is best suited
to be addressed by the outstanding staff of the Treasury Department's
Office of Tax Policy (OTP) and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). It
is my understanding that Treasury and the IRS recently issued proposed
regulations to address certain ambiguities in the FIRPTA legislation.
If confirmed, I look forward to working with my colleagues in OTP and
IRS Chief Counsel's office to achieve the shared goal of encouraging
foreign investment in U.S. infrastructure while protecting the U.S. tax
base.
Question. The rum excise tax cover-over, which allows excise taxes
on rum produced in Puerto Rico and U.S. Virgin Islands be refunded back
to these islands, is an essential source of revenue that supports home-
grown industry and self-reliance. The cover-over program is subject to
biennial extension, and in Congress, we are considering how to
encourage the program to continue driving economic development in these
territories.
In your position at Treasury, would you support lifting the caps on
cover-overs to Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands and making the
temporary extension permanent?
Answer. This is not an issue that I have studied or worked on in my
current role as Deputy General Counsel. However, if confirmed, I will
work with the Office of Tax Policy and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and
Trade Bureau to better understand the issue and try to address your
concerns.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
Question. On July 16, 2018, the Treasury Department issued Rev.
Proc. 2018-38, which eliminated the requirement for tax-exempt ``dark
money'' organizations to report the identities of major donors. This
rule change will significantly hamper the ability of the IRS, law
enforcement, and intelligence organizations to police the laundering of
funds through our political system. The Office of General Counsel
provides legal and policy advice to the Treasury Secretary, and Sec.
Mnuchin decided he would no longer collect donor information for
certain nonprofit organizations that may engage in political
activities. The Treasury Secretary relied on General Counsel's legal
analyses to justify these actions.
Please provide me with exactly and specifically what role you had
in that decision and the drafting of the legal justification.
Answer. The tax law experts of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and
the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy (OTP) have primary
responsibility for legal analysis and review of tax rules and guidance.
The Office of General Counsel relies heavily on their analysis and
expertise in the review of tax matters. With respect to Rev. Proc.
2018-38, I recall being briefed informally by OTP concerning the
statutory and regulatory authority underlying the IRS Commissioner's
grant of limited information reporting relief under section 6033 of the
Internal Revenue Code. I recall discussing the same subject with the
IRS Office of Chief Counsel. I also reviewed a draft of Rev. Proc.
2018-38 for legal issues--as I have reviewed many dozens of tax
regulatory actions and guidance documents for legal issues during my
service at Treasury.
The Treasury Office of General Counsel is responsible for questions
of legal authority, not analysis of tax administration needs and
policies. The issuance of Rev. Proc. 2018-38 was based on the IRS's
determination that the collection of personally identifiable donor
information on Form 990 is ``not necessary for the efficient
administration of the internal revenue laws,'' Rev. Proc. 2018-38
(quoting 26 CFR Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(6)), and the reasons for that
determination are outlined in the revenue procedure.
Question. Who lobbied or engaged the Department for Rev. Proc.
2018-38? Please provide me and this committee a list of organizations
and interest groups that the Department met with, either publicly or
privately, before the decision was released?
Answer. I am aware that the Treasury Department and IRS received
correspondence on this issue from members of Congress and a coalition
of individuals and organizations in May and June of 2018. I have asked
the Treasury Office of Legislative Affairs to promptly provide your
office with copies of those letters. I did not attend any meetings with
outside parties concerning this issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
Question. The 2017 Republican tax law partially paid for massive
tax cuts for corporations, the wealthy, and pass-through businesses by
limiting the deduction for State and local taxes to $10,000.
This was a rifle-shot at constituents in high cost-of-living States
like Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and others.
While I wasn't a fan of the SALT cap, I am even more concerned
about recent Treasury regulations that reach far beyond what was
contained in the 2017 Republican tax law. These regulations effectively
extend the $10,000 SALT cap to include State tax credit programs.
These regulations reversed the long-standing IRS position that
taxpayers are entitled to a full charitable deduction, even if they
receive State tax credits in return for their contribution.
Could you please tell me where in the 2017 tax law it instructs the
Treasury Department to limit charitable deductions for donations for
State tax credit programs?
Answer. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not amend section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code. The proposed and final regulations to which your
question refers are based on the application of longstanding Federal
income tax principles under section 170. Specifically, under section
170, any benefit received or expected to be received by a donor in
return for making a donation to a charitable organization reduces the
amount of any Federal charitable contribution deduction for such
donation.
Question. On September 5, 2018 Secretary Mnuchin announced these
regulations wouldn't apply to businesses that make donations to private
school voucher programs, with the strong backing of Republican
Senators.
Could you tell me where in the 2017 tax law it said that school
voucher programs should get a special deal?
Answer. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does not make distinctions among
State tax credit programs. Likewise, Treasury and IRS regulations and
guidance on this issue apply equally to all such programs.
Question. It appears that Treasury as a general matter is picking
and choosing when it wants to use broad authority in regulations issued
under the 2017 tax law.
Could you please provide guidance on how you determine the
expansiveness of your regulatory authority in interpreting the 2017 tax
law?
Answer. The scope of Treasury's regulatory authority under the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is a matter of statutory interpretation. As a
result, the answer to this question is highly context-dependent. It
requires interpreting the terms of the particular grant of rulemaking
authority being invoked and, as importantly, the language of the
substantive Internal Revenue Code provision or provisions being
implemented. Under title 26, Congress has provided general and specific
grants of rulemaking authority. Section 7805 confers authority to
``prescribe all needful rules and regulations for enforcement of [title
26],'' including ``all rules and regulations as may be necessary by
reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.''
Treasury has relied on these general grants of authority to implement
some provisions of TCJA. In addition, Congress often includes specific
grants of authority to implement particular provisions of the code;
TCJA contains at least 72 such specific grants of authority. Some of
those specific grants provide explicit indication of the nature of
regulatory authority Congress expected Treasury to exercise, such as
directives to adopt anti-abuse rules, to provide special rules for
applying the purposes of a general rule to specified situations, or to
implement new information reporting requirements.
The attorneys of the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy
(OTP) and the IRS Office of Chief Counsel have primary responsibility
for legal analysis of tax regulatory actions; the Office of General
Counsel relies on their analysis and expertise in the review of all tax
regulatory actions. Our general approach to statutory interpretation is
described in the response to the question below.
Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and Office of General Counsel would
be pleased to provide your staff with a briefing or additional
information on any particular interpretation adopted in TCJA
implementing regulations. If confirmed, I am committed to working with
your staff to answer any questions that may arise concerning Treasury's
interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code.
Question. What principles of statutory interpretation are you
applying in developing regulations under that law?
Answer. The approach of the Treasury Office of General Counsel is
to follow the Supreme Court's guidance governing agency interpretations
of Federal statutes. The best evidence of congressional intent is the
text of the statute. We also consider statutory context and structure,
as well as how similar statutory language has been interpreted by
Treasury in the past. The provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are
often deeply interconnected, so we take particular care to analyze how
Congress intended a new provision to work with existing code
provisions. When the text does not resolve a question of
interpretation, courts have indicated that a review of legislative
history may help elucidate the meaning of a statutory provision.
In some cases, even after applying all of the traditional tools of
statutory construction, a statutory provision may remain ambiguous. In
such cases, in the context of TCJA, Treasury's goal is generally to
adopt the construction that best effectuates congressional intent, as
Treasury's senior policymakers understand it.
Question. I oppose any attempts to make it easier for illegal and
foreign money to influence our political process. That's why I have
been fighting the Treasury Department's rule change that stopped
requiring dark money groups to disclose the identities of their major
donors to the IRS.
Last year, shortly after IRS issued its dark money rule, Senator
Tester and I introduced a resolution to overturn the rule under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA). It should have been a straightforward
process--the Treasury Department even filed the paperwork with the
Senate stating that this was a rule subject to the CRA.
But when Treasury found out that Senator Tester and I were planning
to overturn the rule, they sent us a letter asking for a ``do-over.''
They simultaneously claimed that they were eligible for the legal
benefits of the Congressional Review Act, but also that we weren't
allowed to challenge the rule under that same CRA provision.
It was clear in my mind that Treasury was waging a frivolous legal
battle in an attempt to obstruct congressional action. Treasury managed
to tie up our CRA process for 5 weeks. Some months later, the GAO
eventually weighed in with its own, independent legal opinion finding
Treasury's ``do-over'' argument meritless.
My concern is that the Treasury Department was clearly trying to
impede Congress's right to vote on the dark money rule.
My question is this: is it ever appropriate for the Treasury
Department to play legal games to obstruct the Senate's right to
legislate?
Answer. No, it is not appropriate.
Although the IRS may have views on whether a revenue procedure or
other published guidance constitute a ``rule'' within the meaning of
the Congressional Review Act (CRA), those views are not binding on
Congress. The IRS's October 9, 2018 letter to the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) provides an explanation of its CRA analysis
with respect to Rev. Proc. 2018-38 and of its longstanding approach to
CRA analysis more broadly. In its November 30, 2018 Opinion, the GAO
concluded that, irrespective of whether Rev. Proc. 2018-38 is a
``rule'' within the meaning of the CRA, the IRS's submission of the
guidance pursuant to its longstanding approach allowed Congress to
``fully exercise its review and oversight authorities under CRA.'' It
is my understanding that the IRS Office of Chief Counsel has recently
enhanced its review of IRS guidance prior to submission under the CRA
process.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Michael F. Bennet
Question. As I have said to your predecessor, the Treasury serves
as a powerful stabilizing force for our country. Part of that stability
is preserved by insulating Treasury from politics, which is central to
the role of the General Counsel.
Do you agree that Treasury's work to combat illicit financial
activity, impose sanctions, and conduct national security reviews
through the CFIUS process should be free from political interference?
Answer. Yes, I also share your view that the Treasury Department
should be a source of stability for our economy and our Nation.
Question. Do you believe the same is also true for tax
administration and enforcement at the IRS?
Answer. Yes.
Question. In your previous role at Treasury, did anyone at the
White House or the administration request that you or someone in your
office intervene in a personal tax matter that was within the purview
of IRS's tax administration or enforcement responsibilities?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. Were you made aware of any instance in which an
individual at the White House or the administration request that you or
someone in your office intervene in a personal matter related to the
work of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence,
including the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or Financial
Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)?
Answer. No, not that I recall.
Question. If appointed General Counsel, can you commit to doing
everything within your power to protect the IRS from political
interference generally, whether from the President, his family, or his
associates?
Answer. I will work to protect all Treasury functions, including
those of the IRS, from improper political interference.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. As you know, Rev. Proc 2018-38 was issued on July 16,
2018. When did you conduct your legal review of Rev. Proc 2018-38?
Answer. The attorneys of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel and the
Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy have primary responsibility
for legal analysis and review of tax rules and guidance. The Office of
General Counsel relies heavily on their analysis and expertise in the
review of tax matters. I believe I reviewed Rev. Proc. 2018-38 in June
or July 2018 for legal issues, as I have reviewed dozens of tax rules
and guidance projects. The Treasury Office of General Counsel is
responsible for questions of legal authority, not analysis of tax
administration needs and policies. The issuance of Rev. Proc. 2018-38
was based on the IRS's determination that the collection of personally
identifiable donor information on Form 990 is ``not necessary for the
efficient administration of the internal revenue laws,'' Rev. Proc.
2018-38 (quoting 26 CFR Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(6)), and the reasons for that
determination are outlined in the revenue procedure.
Question. Were you involved in the drafting of the response I
received from the IRS on July 23, 2019 regarding Rev. Proc. 2018-38?
Answer. I reviewed but did not draft the response letter.
Question. If so, what sections did you draft, review, or provide
advice on?
Answer. I reviewed the entire response letter. I discussed your
July 11, 2019 letter with the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to emphasize
the importance of providing a clear, prompt response to all of your
questions, based on the concerns conveyed directly to me by a member of
your staff on July 9th regarding the inadequacy of a past response to
your inquiry on Rev. Proc. 2018-38. If your concerns have not been
fully addressed, I am sure the IRS Office of Legislative Affairs can
work with your staff on your inquiry.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. Pat Roberts
Question. According to figures published by the Treasury in June,
the Department presently holds roughly $25 billion in matured unclaimed
savings bonds on its books. These bonds have matured, yet their owner
or heir has not claimed the funds. In many cases, the rightful
individual has not claimed the bond or its proceeds because the paper
document is missing or otherwise unavailable.
Treasury has stated that the Department is making all necessary
efforts to ensure that those who invested in U.S. savings bonds receive
the return on their investment. For Treasury to fulfill its obligation
to those with right to a U.S. savings bond, the Department should
publish all necessary information for claimants who do not hold the
physical bond. Treasury's contention has been that it is cost
prohibitive to recover the information necessary so that individuals
could claim a bond.
Many States, including Kansas, have escheatment statutes allowing
their agencies to undertake appropriate measures to reunite individuals
with their unclaimed property. Certain States have gone further,
offering to engage in a pilot program to recover and publish necessary
information so that the Treasury does not incur the cost.
Would you recommend Treasury engage in a pilot program? If not,
could you please explain the policy and legal arguments for not
honoring State escheatment laws?
Answer. I have recused myself from this issue because my past
employer represents several States in pending litigation concerning
unredeemed savings bonds. As a result, regrettably, I am unable to
respond to these questions. However, I will ensure that you receive a
response to your questions from the appropriate Treasury officials.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Chuck Grassley,
a U.S. Senator From Iowa
Today the Finance Committee will hear from four nominees, three
nominees to the Treasury Department, and a nominee to the U.S. Tax
Court.
Before I give my full statement, I want to recognize the Majority
Leader, who is with us this morning to introduce one of the nominees.
Thank you, Leader McConnell.
This morning we first will hear from Brent McIntosh, who is
nominated to be Treasury Under Secretary for International Affairs.
This position has a broad portfolio that includes working with many
multinational organizations such as the World Bank and the IMF.
Given this position is related to international affairs, let me
take a moment to stress again that Treasury and the administration
should use all available tools under U.S. law to encourage other
countries to stop efforts to implement unilateral digital services
taxes, like the ones in France and under consideration in the UK.
Instead, our trading partners should focus on the multilateral efforts
underway at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
I was pleased to see Treasury Secretary Mnuchin's reported comments
after the G7 finance ministers' meeting last week indicating a two-
track process with respect to these issues--continuing the section 301
investigation of the French digital services tax while also negotiating
with the OECD Inclusive Framework members on a consensus solution to
the tax challenges of the digital economy.
Through multiple letters and other communications, Senator Wyden
and I together have expressed our bipartisan interest in Treasury
continuing its active participation in the OECD negotiations and using
all tools available to prevent unilateral measures.
I look forward to any comments our Treasury witnesses would like to
provide on this matter.
Our next nominee will be Brian Callanan, who is nominated to Mr.
McIntosh's current position as Treasury General Counsel. Since the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act was enacted at the end of 2017, the Treasury
Department has done a remarkable job of developing the regulations and
other guidance to implement the bill. The Office of Treasury General
Counsel has been an indispensable part of that process, while also
fulfilling all its other legal responsibilities at Treasury and its
bureaus.
Next we will hear from Brian McGuire, nominated to be Treasury
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs. I've talked many times
about how important it is that members of this committee are able to
get their questions answered and responses to their letters. I'm
heartened that Mr. McGuire has worked so many years for Leader
McConnell, so I expect he's learned how important it is for the
executive branch to cooperate and work with those of us here in the
legislature.
Finally, we will hear from Travis Greaves, nominated to a term of
15 years on the U.S. Tax Court. The Tax Court is where taxpayers can
turn to settle a disputed liability with the IRS, and without having to
pay the disputed tax before their case is heard. If Mr. Greaves is
confirmed, along with two other nominees who have already been reported
from the committee in this Congress, 18 of the 19 positions on the Tax
Court will be filled.
Thank you all for your willingness to serve and for your testimony
here today.
______
May 24, 2019
The Honorable Charles E. Grassley
Chairman
U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
The Honorable Ron Wyden
Ranking Member
United States Senate
Committee on Finance
219 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Nomination of Travis Greaves to be a Judge on the United States
Tax Court
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wyden:
We write in strong, bipartisan support of the appointment of Travis
Greaves to be a judge on the United States Tax Court. We are a group of
tax practitioners from across the country who are deeply familiar with
the U.S. Tax Court and also with Travis Greaves. We have worked with
him in various capacities: private practice, government, and
professional organizations. No matter the role, he has demonstrated
strong leadership, fairness, and integrity.
The Tax Court is a forum to expeditiously resolve disputes between
taxpayers and the Internal Revenue Service while ensuring uniform
interpretation of the Internal Revenue Code. A judge on the Court must
have deep substantive tax knowledge, an understanding of tax procedure,
a strong work ethic, and integrity. Travis Greaves has all of these
characteristics. He respects the history and role of the Court and its
relationship with the Internal Revenue Service and the public.
The Tax Court hears a wide variety of cases, and Mr. Greaves'
experience in private practice, the Federal Government, State
government, and in professional organizations makes him a strong
addition to the Court. Mr. Greaves has represented some of the largest
taxpayers in complex tax disputes involving numerous substantive areas
of the tax law. He worked at the Tax Court as an Attorney Advisor to a
judge and understands the intricacies of the Court from when a case
arrives to decision. In his current role he leads some of the Nation's
most elite tax attorneys in the Appellate Section of the Department of
Justice Tax Division. In this role he manages some of the most complex
cases and works with various interested parties to achieve fair and
just results.
Mr. Greaves is a thoughtful, fair-minded, and intelligent attorney
who acts with integrity and holds the tax system and the Tax Court in
the highest regard. We would point out that he has given significant
amounts of his personal time to the enhancement of the tax profession
and professional development of future tax leaders. From spending time
teaching and mentoring law students as an adjunct professor at
Georgetown University Law Center, to advocating for young professionals
at the American Bar Association, to serving unrepresented taxpayers pro
bono, Mr. Greaves has shown a clear desire to further tax
administration. We all know how excited Mr. Greaves is to be considered
for the Court and believe that he would serve with distinction.
Based on our personal knowledge and experience, Mr. Greaves is a
highly respected tax professional who would be an exceptional addition
to the Court. We respectfully request that the Senate promptly consider
and confirm the appointment of Travis Greaves to the United States Tax
Court.
Respectfully submitted,
By the following individuals in their individual capacities
(current affiliations are solely noted for purposes of identifying
their relevant background).
Jeremy Abrams Giovanni Alberotanza Katie Amin
Reed Smith LLP Rosenberg Martin Groom Law Group
Greenberg, LLP
Washington, DC Baltimore, MD Washington, DC
Arielle M. Borsos Bob Bowne Andrew Brewster
Caplin and Drysdale BDO Deloitte
Washington, DC McLean, VA McLean, VA
Mark Coscia Drew Cummings Jacob Dean
Cognizant CCJ
New York, NY Washington, DC Wooster, OH
Jason Freeman Glen E. Frost Jeffrey M. Glassman
Freeman Law Frost and Associates, Meadows Collier
LLC
Frisco, TX Annapolis, MD Dallas, TX
Jeffrey Helm Matthew Hicks Austin Holt
EY Caplin and Drysdale Cooley LLP
Ciudad de Mexico Washington, DC Santa Monica, CA
Paul Hynes, Jr. Victor A. Jaramillo Nehemiah Jefferson
Zuckerman Spaeder LLP Caplin and Drysdale The Jefferson Firm,
LLC
Washington, DC Washington, DC Tampa, FL
Steven P. Johnson Ryan J. Kelly Alexander Kugelman
Alston and Bird LLP Kugelman Law, P.C.
Washington, DC Washington, DC San Francisco, CA
Elizabeth McGee Bruce A. McGovern Michael S. McGovern
Law Office of Elizabeth South Texas College of The Gober Group
McGee Law
San Francisco, CA Houston, TX Austin, TX
Brian C. McManus James E. McNair Mark C. Milton
Latham and Watkins LLP Reed Smith LLP MCM Law LLC
Boston, MA McLean, VA St. Louis, MO
Jeffrey A. Neiman Eli S. Noff Stephen Pennartz
Marcus Neiman and Frost and Associates, Groom Law Group
Rashbaum LLC
Fort Lauderdale, FL Columbia, MD Washington, DC
John Pontius Bradley A. Ridlehoover Charles M. Ruchelman
Pontius Tax Law, LLC McGuireWoods Caplin and Drysdale
Rockville, MD Richmond, VA Washington, DC
Ross R. Sharkey Molly Sobhani Daniel G. Strickland
Caplin and Drysdale Klausner and Company,
P.C.
Washington, DC Arlington, VA Washington, DC
Shamik Trivedi T. Joshua Wu
Grant Thornton LLP Clark Hill PLC
Washington, DC San Antonio, TX
______
July 24, 2019
The Honorable Charles Grassley The Honorable Ron Wyden
Chairman Ranking Member
U.S. Senate U.S. Senate
Committee on Finance Committee on Finance
Washington, DC 20510 Washington, DC 20510
Re: Nomination of Brent J. McIntosh to be Under Secretary of the
Treasury for International Affairs
Dear Chairman Grassley and Ranking Member Wyden:
We write in strong support of the nomination of Brent J. McIntosh
to be Under Secretary for International Affairs at the Department of
the Treasury. Each of us served with Brent in government--at the White
House, at the Department of the Treasury, at the Department of Justice,
or in other capacities. We believe Brent to be a superb choice to lead
International Affairs at Treasury.
Brent's current service as Treasury's General Counsel, his prior
public service, and his work in the private sector demonstrate that he
is particularly well-suited to serve as Under Secretary for
International Affairs. Brent has extensive experience in many subject
matters central to Treasury's international work and possesses deep
insight into how those matters affect our nation's position in the
world. Brent has spent much of his career--both at Treasury and during
his prior service at the White House and the Justice Department--
grappling with some of the toughest foreign policy and national
security challenges our nation confronts, and we believe that his
steady hand and strategic vision will serve the Department and the
nation well. In particular, we believe that Brent has the judgment,
acumen, integrity, and temperament necessary to serve our nation with
distinction in the role of Under Secretary.
Brent's nomination comes at a time when our nation faces increasing
challenges across the globe, whether from strategic competitors such as
Russia and China, or from regionalactors--such as Iran and North
Korea--that are interested in playing a more aggressive role in the
world. Indeed, at a time when U.S. leadership in the international
economic and financial domain is needed more than ever, we believe
that, if confirmed, Brent will bring energy, expertise, and vision to
Treasury's role in shaping key international economic and financial
relationships, norms, and initiatives. We also believe that, if
confirmed, Brent will be able to use the skills and experiences he has
gained serving in key roles throughout our government to skillfully
pursue our national interest, while discharging the duties of the
office to which he has been nominated with honor and dedication. Given
this, and mindful of the critical role the Senate plays in the
nomination process, we urge the members of the Committee on Finance,
and the Senate, to consider swiftly--and approve--Brent's nomination to
be Under Secretary for International Affairs for the Department of the
Treasury.
Sincerely,
Tim Adams, former Under Secretary of the Treasury for
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
J. Michael Allen, former Special Assistant to the President and
Senior Director for Counter Proliferation Strategy, National
Security Council, The White House
Stewart Baker, former Assistant Secretary for Policy, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security
John F. Bash, former Special Assistant to the President and
Associate Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the President, The
White House
Zina Bash, former Special Assistant to the President for
Regulatory Reform, Domestic Policy Council, The White House
Joshua Bolten, former Chief of Staff to the President, The
White House
Rachel L. Brand, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of
Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Megan Brown, former Counsel to the Attorney General, U.S.
Department of Justice
Reginald J. Brown, former Special Assistant to the President
and Associate Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the President,
The White House
Dan Bryant, former Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
William A. Burck, former Deputy Assistant to the President and
Deputy Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the President, The
White House
Jonathan W. Burks, former Chief of Staff, Office of the
Speaker, U.S. House of Representatives
Elbridge Colby, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Strategy and Force Development, U.S. Department of Defense
Shannen W. Coffin, former Counsel to the Vice President, The
White House
Scott A. Coffina, former Associate Counsel to the President,
Office of the Counsel to the President, The White House
Bryan N. Corbett, former Special Assistant to the President,
National Economic Council, The White House
Grant M. Dixton, former Special Assistant to the President and
Associate Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the President, The
White House
Michael Drummond, former Special Assistant to the President,
Office of the Staff Secretary, The White House
Paul R. Eckert, former Special Assistant to the President and
Associate Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the President, The
White House
John P. Elwood, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Mark Epley, former General Counsel, Office of the Speaker, U.S.
House of Representatives
Fred F. Fielding, former Counsel to the President, The White
House
Leslie Fahrenkopf Foley, former Special Assistant to the
President and Associate Counsel, Office of the Counsel to the
President, The White House
Tony Fratto, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Public Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Gregory G. Garre, former Solicitor General, U.S. Department of
Justice
Brett Gerry, former Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice
Blake L. Gottesman, former Deputy Chief of Staff to the
President, The White House
Joseph Hagin, former Deputy Chief of Staff to the President,
The White House
Amy Dunathan Hammer, former Associate Counsel to the President,
Office of the Counsel to the President, The White House
Jeffrey M. Harris, former Associate Administrator, Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs, The White House
Sarah Harris, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Kevin A. Hassett, former Chairman, Council of Economic
Advisers, The White House
Francis Q. Hoang, former Associate Counsel to the President,
Office of the Counsel to the President, The White House
Robert F. Hoyt, former General Counsel, U.S. Department of the
Treasury
Thomas G. Hungar, former General Counsel, U.S. House of
Representatives
Jamil N. Jaffer, former Associate Counsel to the President,
Office of the Counsel to the President, The White House
Myriah Jordan, former Special Assistant to the President for
Policy, Office of the Chief of Staff, The White House
Daniel P. Kearney, Jr., former Special Assistant to the Legal
Adviser to the Secretary of State, U.S. Department of State
Peter D. Keisler, former Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Marc L. Kesselman, former General Counsel, U.S. Department of
Agriculture
Dirk Kempthorne, former Secretary of the Interior
Richard Klingler, former Senior Associate Counsel to the
President and Legal Adviser, National Security Council, The
White House
V. Phillip Lago, former Executive Secretary, National Security
Council, The White House
Michael E. Leiter, former Director, National Counterterrorism
Center
Al Lambert, former Associate Counsel to the President, Office
of the Counsel to the President, The White House
Paul Lettow, former Senior Director for Strategic Planning,
National Security Council, The White House
Clay Lowery, former Assistant Secretary of Treasury for
International Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Jeanie Mamo, former Deputy Assistant to the President and
Director of Media Affairs, Office of Communications, The White
House
Roman Martinez, former Director for Iraq, National Security
Council, The White House
Ashley Marquis, former Deputy Director, National Economic
Council, The White House
Anita B. McBride, former Assistant to the President and Chief
of Staff to the First Lady, The White House
Donald F. McGahn II, former Counsel to the President, The White
House
Steve McMillin, former Deputy Director, Office of Management
and Budget, The White House
Edward E. McNally, former United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Illinois, U.S. Department of Justice
Dan Meyer, former Assistant to the President for Legislative
Affairs, The White House
Harriet Miers, former Counsel to the President, The White House
William E. Moschella, former Assistant Attorney General, Office
of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice
Michael B. Mukasey, former Attorney General of the United
States
Stephen A. Myrow, former Chief of Staff to the Deputy Secretary
of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Graham O'Donoghue, former Associate Counsel to the President,
Office of the Counsel to the President, The White House
John C. O'Quinn, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Matthew G. Olsen, former Director, National Counterterrorism
Center
Elizabeth Papez, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice
Neil Patel, former Assistant to the Vice President for Economic
and Domestic Policy, The White House
Jake Phillips, former Senior Counsel to the Deputy Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice
Bobby J. Pittman Jr., former Deputy Assistant Secretary for
International Finance and Debt, Office of International
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Michael S. Piwowar, former Commissioner and Acting Chairman,
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Benjamin A. Powell, former General Counsel, Office of the
Director of National Intelligence
John I. Pray, Jr., former Executive Secretary, National
Security Council, The White House
Daniel M. Price, former Assistant to the President and Deputy
National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs,
The White House
Kristi Remington, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
Karl Rove, former Senior Advisor and Deputy Chief of Staff to
the President, The White House
Kyle Sampson, former Chief of Staff, Office of the Attorney
General, U.S. Department of Justice
Schuyler J. Schouten, former Special Assistant to the
President, Senior Associate Counsel to the President, and
Deputy Legal Advisor, National Security Council, The White
House
Rebecca Seidel, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of Justice
Kristen Silverberg, former United States Ambassador to the
European Union, U.S. Department of State
Luke Sobota, former Attorney-Adviser, Office of Legal Counsel,
U.S. Department of Justice
Charles D. Stimson, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Detainee Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense
Jordan Stoick, former Senior Advisor, Office of Legislative
Affairs, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Chad C. Sweet, former Chief of Staff, Office of the Secretary
of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Jeffrey A. Taylor, former United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia, U.S. Department of Justice
Ronald J. Tenpas, former Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division, U.S. Department of
Justice
Marc A. Thiessen, former Assistant to the President for
Speechwriting, The White House
Tevi Troy, Ph.D., former Deputy Secretary, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Ted Ullyot, former Chief of Staff to the Attorney General,
Office of the Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice
Kenneth L. Wainstein, former Assistant to the President for
Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, The White House
Matthew C. Waxman, former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Detainee Affairs, U.S. Department of Defense
Jared Weinstein, former Special Assistant to the President and
Personal Aide, The White House
Clete Willems, former Deputy Assistant to the President for
International Economics and Deputy Director, National Economic
Council, The White House
Alden Wood, former Deputy Chief of Staff, Office of the
Secretary of the Treasury, U.S. Department of the Treasury
Julie Myers Wood, former Assistant Secretary for Immigration
and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
Raul F. Yanes, former Staff Secretary to the President, The
White House
Juan C. Zarate, former Deputy National Security Advisor and
Deputy Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism,
National Security Council, The White House
______
Prepared Statement of Travis Greaves, Nominated to be
a Judge of the United States Tax Court
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Wyden, and distinguished
members of the committee.
I am honored and grateful to have been nominated by President Trump
to be a judge on the U.S. Tax Court, the place where I began my career
as a tax attorney. I learned early on the important role the Tax Court
plays in our society, serving as the primary judicial forum for
taxpayers challenging IRS determinations before paying the disputed
tax. Most taxpayers appearing in the Tax Court are pro se and have
little if any legal background. During my time at the court, I saw
firsthand how daunting appearing in court can be for pro se litigants.
If I am confirmed, I will make every effort to balance the need to help
these taxpayers understand the Court's rules and procedures with my
duty to remain independent and impartial.
Over my career I have worked on almost every side of a tax
controversy matter, and I have had the good fortune to learn from many
great practitioners. As an attorney adviser at the Tax Court, judges,
including some here today, taught me the importance of keeping an open
mind in each case and of adjudicating cases in a fair and timely
manner. If confirmed, these are lessons that I will take with me to the
bench. In private practice, I worked at firms ranging in size from
1,500 attorneys to 2 attorneys, and I represented all types of clients.
No matter the firm or client, I learned something every day from my
colleagues. I'd like to thank the attorneys at Reed Smith, Caplin and
Drysdale, and my former law partner Josh Wu for constantly challenging
me to be a better attorney.
I now serve in government as Deputy Assistant Attorney General in
the Department of Justice's Tax Division. In this role, I work with
dedicated career lawyers and professionals in our Appellate Section and
Office of Review, as well as with division and departmental leadership.
It has been a true honor and privilege to work with such an amazing
group of public servants.
On a personal note, the Lord has blessed me with amazing family and
friends, to whom I owe a great deal of gratitude. First, I'd like to
thank my wife Holly and our children; you have taught me patience,
humility and compassion. My mother, Jan Fisher Greaves, is the best
judge I have ever known. She was the first female judge in Ector
County, TX and the only judge when it came to resolving disputes
between me and my siblings. To my father Randy, my sisters Amber and
Shelby, brother Jackson, brother-in-law Clayton, and all my extended
family, thank you for all your support over the years.
I look forward to answering the committee's questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Travis Austin Greaves,
Travis Austin Marshall.
2. Position to which nominated: Judge, United States Tax Court.
3. Date of nomination: August 28, 2018.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: May 13, 1983, Odessa, Texas.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Name and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
1997-2001, Maryville High School; high school diploma, May
2001.
2001-2005, University of Tennessee; B.A. in communication
studies, May 2005.
2005-2008, South Texas College of Law; J.D., May 2008.
2008-2009, Georgetown University Law Center; LL.M. in taxation,
May 2009.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Fourteenth Court of Appeals for the State of Texas, Houston,
Texas; judicial intern (2007).
Ebanks, Smith, and Carlson, Houston, Texas; summer associate
(Summer 2007).
Fletcher and Springer, Dallas, Texas; summer associate (Summer
2007).
Tax Foundation, Washington, DC; law clerk (2008-2009).
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
Wilmington, Delaware; judicial intern (Summer 2009).
United States Tax Court, Washington, DC; attorney advisor
(2009-2011).
Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC; adjunct
professor (2010-2015).
Reed Smith, Falls Church, Virginia; attorney (2011-2013).
Office of the Louisiana Governor, Baton Rouge, Louisiana; tax
policy advisor (2013).
Caplin and Drysdale, Washington, DC; attorney (2013-2016).
Greaves Wu, Washington, DC; attorney (2017).
Department of Justice, Washington, DC; Deputy Assistant
Attorney General (2017-present).
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
Office of Congressman John Duncan, Washington, DC; intern
(2002).
Secretary of the United States Senate, Washington, DC; intern
(2003).
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Greaves Wu LLP, Washington, DC; partner (2017).
GH Partnership, Washington, DC; limited partner (2016-2018).
Rodeo Kings, LLC, Washington, DC; sole proprietor (2015-2017).
Mojo Music Management, Knoxville, TN; sole proprietor (2004-
2005).
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
American Bar Association Tax Section, vice chair, membership
outreach and diversity (2014-2017); Young Lawyers Division
liaison (2012-2016); member (2010-2018).
District of Columbia Bar, member (2010-present).
Federal Bar Association Tax Section, steering committee (2015-
2017); vice chair, Annual Tax Conference (2017); member (2015-
present).
Federalist Society, member (2014-present).
J. Edgar Murdock Inns of Court, member (2011-present).
National Association of Enrolled Agents, member (2016-2017).
Phi Gamma Delta, liaison to national office (2003-2004); member
(2001-present).
Republican National Lawyers Association, member (2017).
South Texas College of Law National Security Law Society,
president (2007-2006).
University of Tennessee. Alumni Association, Washington, DC
chapter, treasurer (2012-2013); member (2008-present).
State Bar of Texas, member (2008-present).
University of Tennessee Student Government Association, member
(2004-2005).
University of Tennessee College of Communications Honor
Society, treasurer (2004-2005); member (2004-2005).
Virginia State Bar, member (2012-present).
Young Life, leader (2002-2004).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
Volunteered to assist with phone bank and door-to-door
campaigning for Jill Homan for RNC Committeewomen (2012).
Volunteered to assist with campaign phone bank for Romney for
President (2012).
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior the date of your nomination.
DC Republican Committee, $175, March 9, 2016.
Romney for President, $500, October 11, 2011.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
University of Tennessee: Phi Gamma Delta Lincoln Fund
Scholarship (approx. 2004); Omicron Delta Kappa National
Leadership Society (approx. 2004); Phi Sigma Theta National
Honor Society (approx. 2004).
South Texas College of Law: Graduated cum laude (2008); dean's
list (2007-2008); Phi Delta Phi Honor Society (2006-2008);
Walker Memorial Mock Trial Competition Finalist (2006).
Georgetown University Law Center: Graduated with distinction
(2009); dean's list (2009).
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published material you have written):
``IRS Establishes Small Business/Self-Employed Fast Track
Settlement Program,'' Greaves and Wu LLP Blog, March 20, 2017,
http://www.jwlawdc.com/fast-track-settlement-program/.
``GOP Releases Proposal to Repeal Portions of Affordable Care
Act,'' Greaves and Wu LLP Blog, March 6, 2017, http://
www.jwlawdc.com/gop-proposal-repeal-affordable-care-act/.
`` `Border Adjustment Tax' Explained,'' Greaves and Wu LLP
Blog, February 14, 2011, http://www.jwlawdc.com/border-
adjustment-tax/.
``OMB Memo Clarifies Trump Administration's Executive Order on
Reducing Regulations,'' Greaves and WU LLP Blog, February 9,
2017, http://www.jwlawdc.com/ombtrumpexecutiveorder/.
``As the IRS Prepares to Fight Identity Theft in Filing Season
Some Refunds May Be Delayed,'' Greaves Wu LLP Blog, February 3,
2017, http://www.jwlawdc.com/irsidentitytheft/.
``Swiss Bank Allegedly Violated DOJ Non-Prosecution Agreement;
Potential Stiff Penalties,'' Greaves and Wu LLP Blog, February
1, 2017, http://www.
jwlawdc.com/swiss-bank-allegedly-violated-doj-non-prosecution-
agreement/.
``IRS Releases Partnership Audit Regs,'' Greaves and Wu LLP
Blog, January 19, 2017, http://www.jwlawdc.com/
proposedpartnershipregs/.
``Tax Claims,'' Court of Federal Claims: Jurisdiction,
Practice, and Procedure, Bloomberg BNA, December 2016.
``The IRS Is Coming: What Your Partnership Should Do Now to
Prepare,'' National Society of Accountants, Main Street
Practitioner magazine, November 15, 2016, http://
mainstreetpractitioner.org/feature/the-irs-is-coming-how-to-
prepare
-for-the-new-irs-partnership-audit-rules/.
``Tax Section and YLD Join Forces on Day After Tax Day
Program,'' American Bar Association Tax Quarterly, July 16,
2015, https://www.americanbar.org/content/dama/aba/publishing/
aba_tax_times/15sum/news-greaves-spotlight-on-young-lawyers-
day-after-tax-day-nq-summer-2015.authcheckdam.pdf.
``Quietly Finding a Home in the Voluntary Disclosure World,''
with T. Joshua Wu, Tax Notes, Volume 148, Number 2, July 13,
2015.
``Jurisdictional Uncertainty in Trust Fund Recovery Penalty
Cases,'' with Charles M. Ruchelman, Tax Notes, p. 963, December
16, 2013.
``The Rescission Decision,'' Tax Talk, Section of Taxation,
Maryland State Bar Association, spring 2013.
``Is the Limited Scope Marketed Opinion Preparing for a
Comeback?'', Tax Talk, Section of Taxation, Maryland State Bar
Association, fall 2012.
``Prostitutes, Pet Food, Body Oil, and Other Bizarre Claimed
Tax Deductions,'' Tax Foundation Blogpost, September 15, 2009,
https://taxfoundation.org/prostitutes-pet-food-body-oil-other-
bizarre-claimed-tax-deductions/.
``Sotomayor Record Indicates Penchant for Protectionist State
Tax Policies,'' State Tax Notes, July 20, 2009, https://
taxfoundation.org/press-release/sotomayor-record-indicates-
penchant-protectionist-state-tax-policies/.
``Justice Souter's Tax Opinions Show Steady Erosion of Respect
for Commerce Clause,'' Tax Notes, June 6, 2009, https://
taxfoundation.org/justice-souters-tax-opinions-show-steady-
erosion-respect-commerce-clause/.
``From the House That Ruth Built to the House the IRS Built,''
Tax Foundation Fiscal Facts, No. 167, April 6, 2009, https://
taxfoundation.org/house-ruth-built-house-irs-built/.
``States Use Gentle Hand in Taxing Timberland,'' Tax Foundation
Fiscal Facts, No. 14, March 25, 2009, https://
taxfoundation.org/states-use-gentle-hand-taxing-timberland/.
``Charging Taxpayers for Tax Collection Is a Tax: Weisblat v.
City of San Diego,'' Tax Foundation Fiscal Facts, No. 160,
February 6, 2009, https://tax
foundation.org/charging-taxpayers-tax-collection-tax-Weisblat-
v-city-san-diego/.
``Permitting Class Refund Actions Is Key to Effective
Challenges of Illegal Taxes: Ardon v. City of Los Angeles,''
Tax Foundation Fiscal Facts, No. 156, November 24, 2008,
https://taxfoundation.org/permitting-class-refund-actions-key-
effective-challeges-illegal-taxes-ardon-v-city-los-angeles/.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates. Provide the committee with one digital copy of each
formal speech and presentation).
I have not given any formal speeches; however, I have often
participated in bar association panels or continuing education
seminars. I do not use prepared remarks, but the discussions
are often accompanied by outlines or slide presentations.
Attached are digital copies of the slides or outlines, if any,
that accompanied the discussions identified below, regardless
of authorship.
Current Developments, American Bar Association Tax Section (May
11, 2018).
Fundamentals of Tax Litigation: Choice of forum, American Bar
Association Tax Section (April 13, 2018).
Current Developments, American Bar Association Tax Section
(September 15, 2017).
New Partnership Audit Rules, 83rd Annual API Federal Tax Forum
(April 24, 2017); Petroleum Accountants Society of Houston
(February 16, 2017); Virginia Society of CPAs (January 26,
2017); CPA Academy (multiple dates 2016-2011).
Ethics for Tax Lawyers; American Bar Association Tax Section
(April 7, 2017).
Taxing the Sharing and Freelance Economies, CPA Academy (March
30, 2017).
Worker Classification Litigation in the U.S. Tax Court,
Maryland State Bar Association Tax Controversy Study Group
(March 16, 2017).
Tax Penalties, Federal Bar Association (March 3, 2017).
Meeting in the Middle: Offers in Compromise, American Society
of Tax Problem Solvers (February 23, 2017); Georgia,
Association of Accounting and Tax Professionals (November 11,
2016).
Death and Taxes: Estate Planning Fundamentals for Accountants,
CPA Academy (multiples dates 2016-2017).
Challenging the Tax Man, Part I, CPA Academy (multiple dates
2016-2017).
Challenging the Tax Man, Part II, CPA Academy (multiple dates
2016-2017).
Nuts and Bolts of a Non-Profit Audit, Virginia Society of CPAs
(January 31, 2017).
From Bad to Worse: When Audit Goes Criminal, National
Association of Enrolled Agents (January 27, 2017); Independent
Association of Accountants of New York (September 14, 2016);
Pennsylvania Society of Tax and Accounting Professionals (July
29, 2016); CPA Academy (July 6, 2016); San Antonio CPA Society
(June 8, 2016); Austin CPA Society (June 7, 2016); CPA Academy
(multiple dates 2016-2017).
Nowhere to Hide: Offshore Tax Filing Requirements, CPA Academy
(January 24, 2017).
Insure Yourself: How the New Captive Insurance Rules Impact
Your Clients, CPA Academy (January 13, 2017).
U.S. Tax Court 101, Clear Law Institute (December 15, 2016);
American Bar Association Tax Section (April 16, 2015).
Challenging IRS Property Valuations, North Carolina Association
of CPAs (December 8, 2016).
Distressed Taxpayers; From Voluntary Disclosure to Bankruptcy,
North Carolina Association of CPAs (December 8, 2016).
Wading Through Murky Waters: How to Successfully Represent Your
Client in IRS Collection Matters, Mississippi Society of CPAs
(December 1, 2016); American Society of Tax Problem Solvers
(November 17, 2016).
Business Tax Planning Fundamentals for CPAs, Clear Law
Institute (November 30, 2016).
Sensitive Business Audits, Online Compliance Panel (November
22, 2016); Compliance Online (October 22, 2016).
Tax Penalties and Tax Procedures, North Carolina Association of
CPAs (November 16, 2016); Georgia Association of Accounting and
Tax Professionals (November 11, 2016); California Society of
CPAs (November 8, 2016).
Challenges at the IRS, North Carolina Association of CPAs
(November 16, 2016).
Missed a Tax Election, Now What?, North Carolina Association of
CPAs (November 14, 2016).
Nuts and Bolts of an IRS Audit, Georgia Association of
Accounting and Tax Professionals (November 11, 2016);
Massachusetts Society of Enrolled Agents (September 22, 2016).
Offshore Enforcement, California Society of CPAs (November 8,
2016).
IRS Sensitive Audits and Criminal Enforcement, California
Society of CPAs (November 8, 2016).
International Tax Transparency, California Society of CPAs
(November 8, 2016); San Francisco Bank Attorneys Association
(November 7, 2016).
Ethical Issues With Respect to Tax Opinions, Clear Law
Institute (October 13, 2016); CPA Academy (multiple dates 2016-
2017).
Employment Taxes and Criminal Prosecutions, American Bar
Association Tax Section (September 30, 2016).
International Tax Issues Affecting Athletes and Entertainers,
American Bar Association Tax Section (September 30, 2016).
Understanding Stages and Strategies in a Criminal Tax Case,
American Academy of Attorney-CPAs (August 3, 2016); Bloomberg
BNA Webinar (July 27, 2016); AICPA Webinar (July 19, 2016).
Federal Tax Updates: How Tax Changes in DC Affect Your Clients,
San Antonio CPA Society (August 12, 2016): Austin CPA Society
(August 11, 2016); Dallas CPA Society (August 10, 2016); CPA
Academy (multiple dates 2016-2017).
Business Tax Update and Recent Developments, Grand Prairie
Chamber of Commerce (August 8, 2016).
Current Developments in International Tax, American Bar
Association Tax Section (February 17, 2016). No slides were
used for this presentation.
When Disaster Strikes: Tax Implications and Relief, Lorman Live
Webinar (July 15, 2015).
Up in Smoke: The Ethical and Tax Implications of the
Legalization of Marijuana, American Bar Association Young
Lawyers Division (May 15, 2015).
Hot Topics in International Tax, American Bar Association Tax
Section (May 8, 2015).
Reducing the Client Who Failed to Plan or File the Required
Forms, 27th Annual Estate Planning and Real Property Spring
Symposia (May 1, 2015).
The Tough Compliance Issues Associated With Taxing Services,
2015 ABA/IPT Advanced Tax Seminar (March 17, 2015).
Current Developments in International Tax Enforcement, Federal
Bar Association Tax Section (February 24, 2014). No slides were
used for this presentation.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
My deep experience in tax controversy, including working with
and observing the U.S. Tax Court in both government and private
practice, make me qualified to serve on the bench. In my roles
as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the Department of
Justice, Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Tax Court, and private
practitioner, I have been involved in over 50 cases before the
U.S. Tax Court, Federal district courts, and courts of appeal.
As Deputy Assistant Attorney General, I supervise the largest
single section in the Tax Division and oversee all Federal tax
appeals, including those from the U.S. Tax Court. This position
has taught me how to manage both numerous cases of varying
complexity as well as competing views of interested parties, a
skill that I believe is necessary for any judge. In my role as
Attorney Advisor at the U.S. Tax Court, I was involved in all
daily office matters, observed trials, and drafted opinions. I
learned first-hand the intricacies of the U.S. Tax Court from
pre-trial discovery to briefing, as well as the important role
that the Court plays in providing taxpayers a pre-payment forum
for challenging tax disputes.
I also spent many years in private practice, where I advised
clients involved in civil and criminal tax controversies. I
gained valuable experience on IRS administrative matters and
represented clients in litigation in different Federal courts.
My clients consisted of individuals and businesses from across
the country and from all types of backgrounds. No matter the
client or issue, I learned how important it is for government
agencies and courts to provide taxpayers with fair and
impartial decisions expeditiously. If confirmed, these are
lessons that I will take with me to the bench.
I also lecture on significant and often-litigated tax issues. I
spent several years as an adjunct professor at Georgetown
University Law Center, where my courses focused on tax
penalties and tax opinions. In addition, I speak to tax
professional organizations across the country on substantive
and procedural tax issues. I have also been active in the tax
bar, holding leadership positions with both the American Bar
Association Tax Section and Federal Bar Association Tax
Section. Through these activities and engagements, I have
gained a greater understanding for the concerns and challenges
faced by taxpayers and their return preparers as they seek to
comply with tax laws.
In sum, these experiences have taught me the skills and
instilled in me the temperament necessary to serve as a U.S.
Tax Court judge, if confirmed.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations, if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
Yes; however, I anticipate holding passive investments and
maintaining an active membership in bar and legal associations,
and I will ensure that these relationships are permissible
under the rules of the U.S. Court, the Code of Conduct for
United States Judges, and 28 U.S.C. sec. 455.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
None; however; I have represented clients in tax matters that
could potentially be brought to the U.S. Tax Court. If this
were to occur, I would take whatever steps were necessary or
appropriate under the rules of the U.S. Tax Court, the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, or 28 U.S.C. sec. 455, to
resolve the conflict, including recusal.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
None. In addition, please see the response to Question C.1.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
As the Tax and Economic Policy Advisor to Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal, I advocated for bills in the Louisiana State
legislature that the Governor supported.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
I will take whatever steps are necessary or appropriate under
the rules of the U.S. Tax Court, the Code of Conduct for United
States Judges, or 28 U.S.C. sec. 455, to resolve any potential
conflict of interest, including recusal.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
See Ethics Disclosure (Financial Disclosure Report).
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Travis Greaves
Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
pro se plaintiffs
Question. If confirmed as a judge to the United States Tax Court,
you will be responsible for resolving difficult tax controversies
brought before you--in large and small cases. Judges for the U.S. Tax
Court travel around the country and hear cases in 75 cities.
Oftentimes, volunteer tax practitioners provide assistance to
unrepresented taxpayers as they navigate the process of petitioning the
IRS. These cases are often brought by small businesses, innocent
spouses, or low-income taxpayers.
As a judge for the U.S. Tax Court, what role would play to ensure
that cases for pro se plaintiffs are being adjudicated in a fair and
timely manner?
Answer. I believe that all parties, taxpayers and the government,
should be treated with courtesy and respect, and that judges should act
promptly in addressing issues brought before the Court. From my
experience working at the U.S. Tax Court and from my time representing
clients pro bono in private practice, I know that many litigants and
witnesses lack any experience litigating cases, much less tax
litigation experience. If confirmed, I would ensure that such litigants
are made aware the various resources at the website of the Tax Court
and of pro bono services both pretrial and at calendar call, and I
would also take the time to explain to them the general rules and
procedures of the court, many of which are designed with pro se
litigants in mind. I would also assure them that I intend to keep an
open mind, attentive to each parties' arguments, and work diligently to
apply the laws enacted by Congress to the facts established in the
case.
new tax law
Question. If confirmed as a judge to the United States Tax Court,
you will be responsible for interpreting how our tax laws apply to a
wide variety of plaintiffs--everything from multinational corporations
with large legal teams to small businesses and individuals who appear
before court without counsel.
As the Internal Revenue Service continues to review and publish new
regulations implementing the 2017 tax bill, differences are emerging
regarding the interpretation of these tax provisions.
Some of these issues may result in future litigation, and the Tax
Court will be in a unique position to help settle interpretation of
many issues arising from the 2017 tax bill.
As a judge for the U.S. Tax Court, what role would you give to
legislative intent, conference report language, or statements from
members as you interpret and apply the previously unlitigated tax law?
Answer. If confirmed as a U.S. Tax Court judge, I would look to the
written statute and rely upon the traditional tools of statutory
construction. Moreover, I would follow Supreme Court and circuit court
precedent on the role agency guidance and legislative history should
play in statutory interpretation.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
tax court qualifications
Question. When the Finance Committee receives a nomination for the
U.S. Tax Court, it typically receives a recommendation letter from the
Tax Section of the American Bar Association--and with respect to your
nomination, we did not receive such a letter.
Though not alarming, it does stand out as past nominees for the Tax
Court have substantial amounts of both tax and litigation experience,
including a letter from the ABA stating they are well-qualified for a
15-year term.
Could you please explain for the record why you believe your
experience in tax law is sufficient for this nomination?
Answer. For more than a decade I have worked in the tax controversy
space, including as an attorney adviser at the U.S. Tax Court, private
practitioner, adjunct law professor at Georgetown University Law
Center, and now as Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing all
appeals from the U.S. Tax Court. Over this period of time I have been
involved in more than 100 cases before the U.S. Tax Court, Federal
district courts, courts of appeal, and U.S. Supreme Court. As Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, a position previously held by three current
U.S. Tax Court judges, I supervise the largest single section in the
Tax Division. This position has taught me how to manage both numerous
cases of varying complexity as well as competing views of interested
parties, a skill that I believe is necessary for any judge. In my role
as an attorney adviser at the U.S. Tax Court, I was involved in all
daily office matters, observed trials, and drafted opinions. I learned
first-hand the intricacies of the U.S. Tax Court from pre-trial
discovery to briefing, as well as the important role that the Court
plays in providing taxpayers a pre-payment forum for challenging tax
disputes.
I also spent many years in private practice, where I advised
clients involved in civil and criminal tax controversies. I gained
valuable experience on IRS administrative matters and represented
clients in litigation in different Federal courts. My clients consisted
of individuals and businesses from across the country and from all
types of backgrounds. No matter the client or issue, I learned how
important it is for government agencies and courts to provide taxpayers
with fair and impartial decisions expeditiously. If confirmed, these
are lessons that I will take with me to the bench.
I also lecture on significant and often-litigated tax issues. I
served as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center,
where my courses focused on tax penalties and tax opinions. In
addition, I speak to tax professional organizations across the country
on substantive and procedural tax issues. Through these activities and
engagements, I have gained a greater understanding for the concerns and
challenges faced by taxpayers and their return preparers as they seek
to comply with tax laws. The sum of these experiences have taught me
the skills and instilled in me the temperament necessary to serve as a
U.S. Tax Court judge, if confirmed.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Mitch McConnell,
a U.S. Senator From Kentucky
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, fellow Senators, thank you
for allowing me to join you today. This is actually somewhat of a rare
occasion for me: I'm introducing a nominee who isn't from the great
Commonwealth of Kentucky. His loss.
Nevertheless, I could hardly be a bigger fan of Brian McGuire, the
President's nominee for Deputy Under Secretary of the Treasury for
Legislative Affairs, to be designated as Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs.
I first met Brian in 2007 when I was interviewing prospective
speechwriters. A resume crossed my desk: a son of Albany, NY with a
background in newspaper journalism.
Perhaps not ``central casting'' for the staff of a newly chosen
Republican leader from Kentucky. But--as my distinguished colleagues
either already know or are about to find out--you can't help but be
impressed by Brian McGuire.
Brian served my office with excellence for 10 years. First he
proved his skills and savvy as my speechwriter. He combined a
sophisticated understanding of policy with a knack for making it
understandable.
Then I asked him to take his talents to the Russell Building and
serve as chief of staff in my personal office. He ran the whole
operation, and he did a great job. He got along with everybody. He
built coalitions. He got results for Kentuckians.
Now, I know you aren't focused on the years of service that Brian
rendered to me and my constituents. You're focused on what kind of
service he will render, to our Nation, at the Treasury Department.
Well, take it from me, this is not somebody who will let you down.
Brian commands a big-time intellect, a truckload of integrity,
dedication, and a dogged work ethic.
At this point in his career, Brian brings the perspective of a
seasoned public servant to his work. After my office, he worked in the
private sector and now serves as Counselor to Secretary Mnuchin.
But all this experience has not brought even a hint of complacency.
The intensity, the focus, and the drive to serve are there every single
day.
As far as I've seen, there are only two things Brian takes more
seriously than work: his faith and his lovely family.
I know Brian's proud to have his wife Ashley here today; their
oldest daughter Stella; his parents, David and Veronica; and Brian's
older sister Annemarie.
The post to which Brian has been nominated is a big job. Its being
done well is vital not only for the smooth functioning of Treasury, but
also for Congress's ability to fulfill our own responsibilities--to
conduct oversight and advocate for our constituents.
Bridges need to be built. Channels of communication need to remain
open. So this is a key position.
Secretary Mnuchin and the President must really like what they've
seen from Brian since he joined the Department to tap him for this
promotion. And I can't say I'm even a little surprised.
I'm confident the members of this committee will find Brian a
highly capable nominee--and a helpful, reliable team player and an
asset to everyone once he's on the job.
______
Prepared Statement of Brian McGuire, Nominated to be Assistant
Secretary for Legislative Affairs, Department of the Treasury
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, distinguished members of
the committee, I am honored to appear before you this morning and
grateful to the President and to Treasury Secretary Mnuchin for
recommending me for the position of Assistant Secretary for Legislative
Affairs.
I am conscious as I sit here of the great responsibility and
privilege that being nominated for this position represents. And I am
humbled to stand in the company of those who have served in this role
before me.
I am grateful to be joined this morning by my parents, David and
Veronica McGuire, who made the trip from Albany, NY to be here. Without
their generous support and example of service, I would not be sitting
here today.
My father moved to Capitol Hill after graduating from college in
1958, but almost immediately returned home at the urging of his older
brother to, quote, get a real job. He went on to spend nearly 4 decades
as a public middle and high school principal in Albany, NY. I often
reflect that I am living vicariously the life he dreamed of when he
moved here 61 summers ago. My mother, meanwhile, spent nearly 3 decades
working full-time as a secretary at Albany's only VA hospital. True
partners, together they raised four children on a tight budget, making
many sacrifices along the way for each of us. They will be married 55
years next month.
I am also grateful to be joined by my big sister Annemarie, who
also made the trip from Albany; the oldest of my three children,
Stella, who's playing hooky from music camp to get a civics lesson this
morning; and by my wife Ashley, an author and native Coloradan, whose
encouragement and many sacrifices have made it possible for me to
consider a return to public service.
I would like to take a moment to thank the Senators and staff who
have given of their time to meet with me in preparation for today's
hearing, and to share with me their priorities and concerns. If I am
fortunate enough to be confirmed, I pledge to continue the dialogue we
have begun, and to be as available and responsive to members and staff
from both parties in both chambers as I can possibly be.
As a former Senate staffer, I believe I am uniquely alert to the
perspective, the demands, and the deadlines of Senators and their
staffs, and I commit to you this morning that, if confirmed, my door,
and my mind, will always be open. It is my sincere intention, if
confirmed, to spend far more time listening than talking, and to be an
accessible and dependable source of prompt and honest feedback.
In reflecting on the decade I spent working in both the Senate
Republican leadership office and in the personal office of Leader
McConnell, I can't help but acknowledge the debt I owe to him. I
cherish the memory of my years in both offices and am grateful for the
mentorship and the opportunities that Leader McConnell gave to this
native New Yorker in the midst of so many other pressing
responsibilities.
Treasury is a special place with a storied past and vital role in
ensuring the growth and stability of an increasingly complex domestic
economy; in reinforcing our Nation's central role in the international
financial system; and, crucially, in developing and aggressively
implementing complex policies and strategies to combat terrorist
financing and financial crimes both here and around the globe.
I have long admired the work of the Department and the many
remarkable career and non-career professionals who have carried out
this complicated work and who have brought their creativity to bear on
the various crises and challenges of our day. As a graduate student in
Manhattan in 2001, I watched as Treasury grappled with the post-9/11
order; and as a Senate staffer in 2008, I watched from a slightly
closer vantage point as Treasury wrestled with a terrible financial
crisis that few saw coming.
If confirmed, I cannot promise to bring the same intellectual gifts
as many of these heroic public servants. But I pledge to bring the same
seriousness and sense of purpose to my job that so many others have
brought to the Department before me. Thank you again for your
consideration. I look forward to your questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name: Brian Thomas McGuire.
2. Position to which nominated: Deputy Under Secretary, designated
Assistant Secretary for Legislative Affairs.
3. Date of nomination: February 25, 2019.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: December 9, 1974, Albany, NY.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Columbia University, April 2001-August 2002, masters in
journalism received February 2006; University of Dallas; August
1996-March 1999, masters in philosophy received May 2000; St.
John's College, Annapolis, August 1992-May 1996, bachelors in
liberal arts received May 1996; Albany High School, August
1988-June 1992, diploma received June 1992.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job):
Counselor for Legislative Affairs, U.S. Treasury; Washington,
DC, 2019. Advise Treasury Secretary on Legislative Affairs.
Policy Director, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck; Washington,
DC, 2017-2019. Advised clients on legislative matters before
Congress.
Chief of Staff, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell; Washington, DC,
2014-2017. Managed Senator McConnell's personal office; oversaw
legislative and communications effort, as well as constituent
service.
Acting Staff Director, U.S. Senate Republican Communications
Center; Washington, DC, 2014. Managed communications staff for
Senate Republican leadership office.
Consultant, National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC);
Scottsdale, AZ, 2012. Helped oversee communications strategy
for Jeff Flake for Senate campaign.
Deputy Communications Director, Senator Mitch McConnell;
Washington, DC, 2009-2014. Helped oversee communications for
Senate Republican leadership office.
Chief Speechwriter, Senator Mitch McConnell; Washington, DC,
2007-2014. Oversaw and drafted speeches, op-eds, and other
written communications.
Chief Speechwriter, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
Washington, DC, 2006. Oversaw speechwriting for Secretary
Alphonso Jackson.
Reporter, The New York Sun; Albany, NY and Washington, DC,
2005-2006. Reported on New York State and Washington, DC
politics and wrote a weekly opinion column.
Business Reporter, The Daily Gazette; Schenectady, NY, 2002-
2005. Reported on local and regional business.
Temporary work, various employers; Albany, NY, 2002-2002,
Performed manual labor at various local businesses on a
temporary basis while looking for work as a reporter.
Office assistant, Scepter Publishers; Princeton, NJ, 2002-2002.
Performed clerical work and data entry while in graduate
school.
Staff reporter, National Catholic Register; Hamden, CT, 1999-
2001. Reported on national stories of general interest to
subscribers of this Catholic weekly.
Office assistant, Spence Publishing; Dallas, TX, 1998-1999.
Assisted with clerical work and shipping fulfillment.
Waiter, Treaty of Paris Restaurant; Annapolis, MD, 1996-1996.
Waited and bussed tables.
Sales, Long Fence and Home; Annapolis, MD, 1996-1996. Door-to-
door salesman during summer after college graduation.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
All positions listed above.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting; etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
All relationships listed above.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
Cleveland Park Club, member; 2018 present.
Kentucky Business Council, member; 2017-present.
116 Club, member; 2014-present.
Churchill Society, former member; 2015-2016.
New York State Society, former member; 2008-2009.
Knights of Columbus, former member; 1993-1996.
National Trust for Historic Preservation, former member; 1996-
1997.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
Consultant, National Republican Senatorial Committee,
Washington, DC, 2012.
Speaker, National Republican Senatorial Committee. Spoke pro
bono three times to campaign officials at the NRSC in the 2012-2014 and
2014-2015 election cycles.
Volunteer, McConnell for Senate campaign, 2014.
Blackburn for Senate Campaign, 2018.
Steering Committee member; Blackburn for Senate, 2016-2018.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
Please find below all contributions attributed to the nominee in
the FEC database as of May 16, 2019. The nominee did not keep his own
records of his political contributions but believes this is a complete
list of all political contributions of $50 or more that he made in the
past 10 years.
Recipient Amount Date
BHFS PAC $416.66 12/28/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 11/30/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 10/31/2018
NRSC $1,250 10/5/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 9/28/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 8/31/2016
Marsha for Senate $2,700 8/24/2018
Friends of John Barrasso $250 8/1/2018
TENN PAC $500 7/31/2018
BHFS PAC $416.36 7/31/2018
NRSC $1,250 7/10/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 6/29/2018
Braun for Senate $1,000 6/26/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 5/31/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 4/30/2018
NRSC $1,250 4/26/2018
Scott for Senate $1,000 4/25/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 3/30/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 2/28/2018
NRSC $1,250 1/31/2018
BHFS PAC $416.66 1/31/2018
BHFS PAC $416.06 12/29/2017
BHFS PAC $416.66 11/30/2017
BHFS PAC $416.66 10/31/2017
BHFS PAC $416.66 9/29/2017
BHFS PAC $416.66 8/31/2017
Scalise Leadership Fund $250 8/2/2017
Brady for Congress $1,000 3/26/2018
Friends of John Barrasso $1,000 2/28/2018
Marsha for Senate $2,700 12/29/2017
McConnell for Senate $1,650 12/06/2017
Heller for Senate $1,000 11/03/2017
Deb Fischer for Senate $500 9/15/2017
McConnell tor Senate $2,500 9/11/2017
Gillespie for Governor $1,000 9/11/2017
BHFS PAC $416.66 8/31/2017
Scalise for Congress $250 7/24/2017
Strange for Senate $1,250 7/24/2017
McConnell for Senate $1,250 7/24/2017
Romney for President $500 10/19/2012
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
Honorary Kentucky Colonel.
Honorary Duke of Hazard.
National Review Institute, fellow.
Heritage Foundation congressional fellow.
Catholic Press Association, second place, best feature article.
Elected class day speaker, St. John's College, Annapolis.
University of Dallas; Institute for Philosophical Studies,
tuition scholarship.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
In my previous career as a reporter, my reporting appeared in
three publications: The New York Sun, The Daily Gazette in
Schenectady, NY, and the National Catholic Register in Hamden,
CT.
At the Sun, my reporting primarily covered State and, to some
extent, national politics. At least some of this is available
at following link, https://www.nysun.com/authors/Brian+McGuire.
At the Gazette, my reporting covered local and regional
business issues almost exclusively. The Gazette does not appear
to maintain an archive for that time period.
At the Register, my reporting covered a variety of topics of
general interest to the paper's subscribers. I do not have
those articles, but at least some of my articles appear on the
publication's website. I also wrote two articles on a freelance
basis after leaving the Register, http://www.ncregister.com.
At the Sun, I also wrote opinion columns, all of which are
listed below. These do not appear to be available on the
publication's website.
Title Date
An Exit Strategy for Pataki January 24, 2005
Embarrassment for the MTA February 7, 2005
Lifting the Cap February 14, 2005
The Legality of Empire Zones February 22, 2005
The National Conversation and Local February 28, 2005
Labor
New York's Stem Cell Misstep March 7, 2005
Morningside and its Money March 14, 2005
Losing Choices March 14, 2005
Charging Away in Albany March 21, 2005
New Tax Code Will Boost State March 28, 2005
Business
Why the State Budget Was On Time April 7, 2005
Union Made Stadium April 11, 2005
Pataki Meets the Budget Gap April 18, 2005
Advancing a Spitzer-proof Budget April 25, 2005
How to Pick a Governor May 2, 2005
Trial Lawyers Come to Albany May 9, 2005
GOP Likes Lazio for State A.G. May 16, 2005
Bruno, Silver Call Time-Out on March 3, 2005
Stadium
Bloomberg for Governor June 6, 2005
A Dickensian View of Mr. Spitzer June 13, 2005
Another Albany Power Broker June 20, 2005
Hevesi's Heft in Albany June 27, 2005
Schumer on the Sidelines July 7, 2005
Hamilton's Lessons for Pataki July 11, 2005
Edward Cox Takes on Mrs. Clinton July 25, 2005
Pataki's Party on the Ropes August 1, 2005
Spitzer's Dean Streak August 8, 2005
Weld's Flash August 22, 2005
Clinton's Campaign of Silence August 15, 2005
Democrats Line Up Behind Dean September 26, 2005
Bush's Next High Court Nominee September 19, 2005
Democrats' Supreme Adviser October 10, 2005
Governor Bredesen's Advantage October 3, 2005
Ready, Aim, Miers October 18, 2005
Redacting Barrett January 16, 2005
One of my graduate school classes at Columbia University hosted
a blog titled ``Finding Faith'' about a class trip to the
former Soviet Union for which I wrote two online feature
stories. These do not appear to be available online.
Title Date
Notes From Underground March 22, 2002
Russia's Past Present April 26, 2002
As a student at Columbia and shortly after, I wrote four
articles for The Wall Street Journal. These do not appear to be
available on the publications website.
Title Date
A Church in the Limelight March 22, 2002
Don't Call it a Religion! May 17, 2002
My Summer School July 19, 2002
Play, Win, Give January 10, 2003
My previous employer, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, self-
published and distributed a piece of political analysis I co-
authored with a colleague on the 2018 midterm elections titled
``The Day After the Midterms'' and dated November 7, 2018,
https://www.bhfs.com/insights/alerts-articles/2018/the-day-
after-the-midterms-post---election-analysis-outlook.
I have published one opinion piece since 2005 which is titled
``Humility, Good of the GOP, Underpin McConnell Milestone'' and
appeared in RealClearPolitics on June 12, 2018, https://
www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2018/06/12/
humility_good_of_the_gop_underpin_mcconnell_milestone_137256.htm
l.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates. Provide the committee with one digital copy of each
formal speech and presentation):
Since my departure from the U.S. Senate in May 2017, I have
given no formal speeches.
I spoke to the Republican Women's Federal Forum in November
2018. I do not have a copy of my remarks.
I have made four political presentations to various client
groups, per below. I do not have the PowerPoint slides
referenced below, all of which were political in nature.
Presentation on midterm election for members of the U.S. Travel
Association; Washington, DC, November 2018.
Presentation on midterm election for clients, with Drew
Littman; Las Vegas, NV and Los Angeles California; August 16-
18, 2018.
Presentation on midterm election with Elizabeth Gore for Denver
Water Conference; Denver, CO; Fall 2017.
Presentation on Political State-of-Play with Drew Littman;
Denver; CO; August 17, 2017.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
I believe my decade of work in the U.S. Senate Republican
leadership office, the Senate Minority Leader's ``personal''
office has prepared me to serve as Assistant Secretary for
Legislative Affairs. As a chief of staff, I worked diligently
to understand and prioritize the immediate and long-term
concerns of constituents and helped our legislative team to do
the same. Identifying and seizing opportunities to advance
legislative or regulatory solutions to some of these concerns
was the highest priority for my office and something we prided
ourselves on doing well. Whether it was working with U.S.
embassies overseas to help unite parents with their adoptive
children in foreign countries; helping retired mine workers
secure medical benefits they had worked hard for and deserved;
or helping small and large businesses in Kentucky secure more
favorable tax treatment that enabled them to invest in the
State and its workers, my role was to be open to the concerns
and criticisms of our constituents, exercise judgement in
evaluating and prioritizing legislative solutions, and working
with all parties on both sides of the aisle in the House and
Senate to drive legislative outcomes that were achievable. I
view the position to which I have been nominated similarly in
the sense that it has important internal and external facing
components, both aimed at achieving favorable results for
taxpayers and the government those taxpayers have elected to
serve them.
The Secretary of the Treasury has a complex and vital role to
play in ensuring that the needs and concerns of the various
agencies he oversees as well as the taxpayers he serves are
heard and understood on Capitol Hill. He also has a vital role
to play in ensuring the safety and stability of our complex
domestic and international financial and banking system, and a
key responsibility for helping ensure our Nation's national
security by identifying and acting on illicit terrorist
financing networks. I would view it as my solemn duty to ensure
that lines of communication in all these areas are open, fluid,
and effective in advancing sound policy through the relevant
congressional committees, leadership offices, and among
interested rank and file members on both sides of the aisle in
both houses of Congress. Another high priority is ensuring that
the Treasury Secretary has all the best information and input
from relevant committee members in both parties from both
chambers as well. Playing the role of an intermediary and
advisor whose daily goal is to ensure smooth and productive
relations between the Hill and Treasury is a responsibility my
current and previous jobs have prepared me for very well, and
one I would be honored and privileged to carry out.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firm,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
I am currently employed at the Department of the Treasury. Note
that consistent with government ethics rules, I continue to
maintain a 401(k) from one former private employer, Brownstein
Hyatt Farber Schreck, as disclosed on Form 278, but do not
accrue any benefits under this plan following my resignation
from the firm.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? It
so, provide details,
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
My family situation will dictate how long I am able to serve in
this role.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by a letter to Brian Sonfield, Designated Ethics
Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics,
and Regulation. Should any potential conflict arise in the
future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics official.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by a letter to Brian Sonfield, Designated Ethics
Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics,
and Regulation. Should any potential conflict arise in the
future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics official.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
Government need not be listed.
I represented Abbvie Pharmaceuticals before the Department of
Homeland Security and the Executive Office of the President on
issues related to pharmaceutical manufacturing on the island of
Puerto Rico.
I represented the Alvin Ailey American Dance Theater Foundation
on a pro bono basis before the U.S. Department of Education in
its efforts to maintain accreditation for a proprietary degree-
granting course of studies at Fordham University.
I represented Amgen Pharmaceuticals before the U.S. Senate in
relation to the 340B Drug Discount Program and drug pricing
more generally.
I represented Assicurazioni Generali before the Senate in
opposition to the Holocaust Insurance Accountability Act (S.
258).
I represented Athene Holding before the Senate, Treasury, and
IRS in support of the BEAT provision of the Tax Cuts and Jobs
Act (H.R. 1).
I represented Blue Cross Blue Shield before the Executive
Office of the President in relation to Cost Sharing Reduction
(CSR).
I represented the Consumer Healthcare Products Association
before the House in support of the DXM Abuse Prevention Act of
2017 (H.R. 1271).
I represented Early Learning Ventures before the Executive
Office of the President in support of greater support for early
childhood education through the tax code.
I represented Edison International before the Department of
Transportation and the Executive Office of the President in
relation to an Environmental Protection Agency CAFE waiver for
the State of California.
I represented FedEx Corporation before the House, Senate,
Executive Office of the President, Treasury, Department of
Transportation, and Executive Office of the Vice President in
support of existing Open Skies agreements; the House, Senate,
and Department of Transportation in support of a
reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration
reauthorization bill; and the Department of Transportation in
support of Federal approval of Twin 33, trailers.
I represented Freeport LNG before the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission in support of permitting for the final train of
their natural gas liquefaction facility in Brazos, TX.
I represented Jackson Family Wines before the Senate in support
of revising the H-2A visa program to cover workers on horse
farms (S. 1578), and in support of H.R. 5971 which would set
aside acreage in Sonoma, California for the Lytton Tribe of
Native Americans.
I represented The Jockey Club before the House and Senate in
support of the Horse racing Integrity Act (H.R. 2651).
I represented The Northeast Maglev before the Senate, Commerce
Department, and the U.S. Department of Transportation in
support of its effort to secure Federal funding for a high-
speed train.
I represented Ligado Networks before the Department of
Transportation to support Ligado's application for spectrum
approval.
I represented Liggett/Vector brands before the Senate in
support of modifications to the Cole-Bishop Amendment to H.R.
3268, the Agriculture and Rural Development Appropriations
Bill.
I represented Lightstone before the U.S. Department of
Transportation in support of a BUILD grant application for an
infrastructure project related to a residential development in
Coachella, California (La Entrada).
I represented Merrill Law on behalf of Soaren Management before
the U.S. House of Representatives in its efforts to establish/
maintain a call center on tribal land.
I represented McDonalds before the U.S. Senate in relation to
National Labor Relations Board decisions related to franchisee
model.
I represented the National Cable and Telecommunication
Association in opposition to a Congressional Review Act
resolution of disapproval related to ``Net Neutrality'' and in
support of broadband language included in the Senate version of
the Farm Bill (H.R. 2).
I represented the National Collegiate Athletic Association
before the U.S. Senate in relation to its concerns about the
impact of sports wagering on collegiate athletics.
I represented the Patients Rights Action Fund in support of a
resolution, H. Con. Res. 80, expressing the sense of the
Congress that assisted suicide puts vulnerable citizens at
risk.
I represented RELX Inc. in support of a delay in the public
release of its scientific publications and in support of its
effort to introduction of the Federal Aviation Administration
to its aviation research offerings.
I represented SafeRx before the Executive Office of the
President in its efforts to promote an innovative, lockable
storage container for prescription drugs.
I represented Synack, a Palo-Alto, California-based
cybersecurity firm, before several Federal agencies, including
the Department of Treasury, with the goal of helping Synack
obtain cybersecurity work, and in support of modifications to
S. 1761, the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2018, that would
limit the use of ``bug bounty'' programs to firms that vet and
monitor ethical hackers used to test U.S. systems.
I represented the U.S. Travel Association before the House and
Senate and Office of Management and Budget in support of
reauthorizing Brand USA.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by a letter to Brian Sonfield, Designated Ethics
Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law, Ethics,
and Regulation. Should any potential conflict arise in the
future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics official.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's Office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than minor traffic offense?
If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee or any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Brent James McIntosh, Nominated to be Under
Secretary for International Affairs, Department of the Treasury
Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Wyden, and members of the
committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I
am honored to be the President's nominee to be Under Secretary of the
Treasury for International Affairs, and I am grateful to the Secretary
for his confidence in recommending me for this position.
Before proceeding, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge my
family here with me today: my beloved wife of 18 years, Laura, who
graces my life; as well as my parents Carl and Shirley McIntosh, who
have always brought a quiet ethic of community service to all they do.
Both of my parents grew up on farms in the thumb of Michigan, and they
have driven in from that great State for today's hearing. My wonderful
children, Mia, Rhys, and Ethan, could not be here today, as they are
enjoying summer camps in New England.
As Treasury's General Counsel for the past 2 years, I have
appreciated the opportunity to work with many of you and your staffs.
Since being nominated to be Under Secretary, I have met with several of
you, and I am grateful for the courtesies you afforded me in those
meetings. I take seriously the priorities that committee members
outlined during our visits, and those meetings only reinforced to me
the importance of a close working relationship with the Congress. Over
the past 2 years, I have endeavored to foster that relationship, and I
look forward to working with you and your staffs to strengthen and
deepen it, should I be confirmed as Under Secretary.
When I appeared here 2 years ago, I observed that the challenges
Treasury confronts are daunting in both breadth and complexity. My
service as General Counsel has driven home just how true that is. It
has been a privilege to confront these challenges standing arm-in-arm
with the immensely talented and dedicated career attorneys and staff of
Treasury's Legal Division. Their hard work and insight benefit our
department--and our Nation--every day.
I have seen firsthand that many of Treasury's most pressing
challenges manifest themselves in our economic and financial
relationships with other countries and with various international
institutions. These issues run the gamut: ensuring our Nation's voice
is clearly heard in coordinating international financial regulation;
negotiating economic agreements with foreign partners; advancing U.S.
interests in multilateral bodies such as the World Bank and the IMF;
and providing valuable technical assistance to developing countries.
Treasury's International Affairs division has a special responsibility
to effectively implement last year's bipartisan legislation modernizing
our CFIUS investment security regime, a task that has profound
implications for both our economy and our national security. Serving as
General Counsel has afforded me the opportunity to work toward solving
these challenges alongside former Under Secretary David Malpass and his
team--especially the hardworking experts who make up IA's career staff.
It is an honor to be nominated to lead IA's continued efforts on
behalf of the American people. The international issues in Treasury's
remit may at times seem esoteric or far-flung, but as David Malpass
said during his confirmation hearing, and as I've seen regularly
throughout my time in government, those issues have significant, real-
world impacts on the citizens of every State in the Union. That reality
demands unwavering focus on the effects international matters have on
individual Americans, and it must be a guiding principle for those who
are charged with advancing our Nation's interests abroad. I pledge
that, if confirmed, it will guide my every action.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today. I look forward
to your questions.
______
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Brent James McIntosh.
2. Position to which nominated: Under Secretary of the Treasury for
International Affairs.
3. Date of nomination: May 23, 2019.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: September 28, 1973, Lansing, Michigan.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband's name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions,
dates attended, degree received, and date degree granted):
Yale Law School (1996-1999), Juris Doctor, May 1999.
University of Michigan (1992-1996), bachelor of arts, May 1996.
London School of Economics (1994-1995).
Williamston High School (1988-1992), diploma, June 1992
(certain classes taken at Michigan State University (1988-1990)
and Lansing Community College (1990-1991)).
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the
title or description of job, name of employer, location of work, and
dates of employment for each job.)
General Counsel for the Department of the Treasury, Washington,
DC (2017-present).
Partner, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC (2011-2017).
Special Counsel, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, Washington, DC
(2009-2010).
Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy Staff Secretary,
The White House, Washington, DC (2007-2009).
Associate Counsel to the President, The White House,
Washington, DC (2006-2007).
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S.
Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2005-2006).
Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal
Policy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2005).
Senior Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of
Justice, Washington, DC (2005).
Counsel, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice,
Washington, DC (2004-2005).
Associate, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP, New York, New York (2001-
2004).
Law clerk, Honorable Laurence H. Silberman, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, DC
(2000-2001).
Law clerk, Honorable Dennis Jacobs, U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, New York, New York (1999-2000).
Summer law clerk, Kirkland and Ellis, Washington, DC (1999).
Research assistant, Professor William Eskridge, Jr., Yale Law
School (1998-1999).
Summer associate, Davis, Polk, and Wardwell, New York, New York
and London, England (1998).
Research assistant, Professor Henry B. Hansmann, Yale Law
School (1997-1998).
Legal intern, Special Prosecutions Group, U.S. Attorney's
Office for the Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York
(1997).
Administrative assistant, Alumni Association of the University
of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan (1996).
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory,
consultative, honorary, or other part-time service or positions with
Federal, State, or local governments held since college, including
dates, other than those listed above):
Romney-Ryan Readiness Team (pre-election presidential
transition team) (2012).
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held
as an officer, director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, non-
voting, etc.), proprietor, agent, representative, or consultant of any
corporation, company, firm, partnership, other business enterprise, or
educational or other institution):
Partner, Sullivan and Cromwell LLP (2011-2017).
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as
any current and former offices held in professional, fraternal,
scholarly, civic, business, charitable, and other organizations dating
back to college, including dates for these memberships and offices):
To the best of my recollection, I am or have been a member of,
or hold or have held another position with, the following
organizations:
Ahn Family Foundation, Grants Committee (2001-2016).
Alexander Hamilton Society (2010-present), co-chair, DC Chapter
(2012-2017); DC Chapter Steering Committee (2010-2012).
All Saints Church (approx. 2004-2009, 2017-present).
Alumni and Friends of the London School of Economics, life
member (2000-present).
Alumni Association of the University of Michigan, life member
(2000-present).
American Bar Association (2001-2006, 2009-present).
American Society of International Law (2001-2005, 2009-
present).
Association of the Bar of the City of New York (2001-2005); Pro
Bono Society (2002, 2003).
Bannockburn Swim Club (neighborhood pool) (2005-2011).
Bretton Woods Committee (2015-present).
Chevy Chas Club (2016, 2017-present).
Christ and St. Stephen's Episcopal Church (2001-2004).
Council on Foreign Relations (2005-2011, 2019).
Entomological Society of America (2011-2012).
Federalist Society (1997-present); International and National
Security Law Practice Group Executive Committee (2010-2017).
Heritage Foundation/Chertoff Group National Security Law
Working Group (2014-2017).
International Bar Association (2015-2017).
International Churchill Society (2018-present).
International Institute for Strategic Studies (2009-present).
John Hay Initiative, International Law Working Group (2015-
2017).
Links Club (2017-present).
London School of Economics Intercollegiate Basketball Team
(1994-1995).
Metropolitan Club of the City of Washington (2008-present).
Michigan Daily, writer and editor (1993-1996).
Montgomery County Recreation, youth basketball coach (2016-
present).
New York State Bar Association (2001-2004).
Pilgrims of the United States (2017-present).
Republican National Lawyers Association (2013-present).
S.A.F.E.WALK (approx. 1992-1994).
St. Albans School Fathers' Committee (2016-present).
St. Columba's Episcopal Church (2009-2017); Gratitude and
Resources Strategic Initiative Team (2016); lay reader (2016-
2017).
Supreme Court Historical Society (2011-present).
U.S. Chamber Litigation Center, U.S. Chamber of Commerce,
Financial Services Advisory Committee (2015-2017).
Yale Club of New York City (2009-present).
Yale Law and Policy Review (approx. 1996-1998).
Yale Law Journal (1997-1999), articles editor (1998-1999).
Yale Law School Association, Executive Committee (2012-2015);
Nominating Committee (2015).
Yale Law School class of 1999, class secretary (2013-present).
Yale Law School class representative (1998-1999).
Yale Law School reunion gift campaign, co-chair (2003-2004);
class committee (2013-2014).
Bar admissions:
State of New York (admitted 2001).
District of Columbia (admitted 2009).
Supreme Court of the United States (admitted 2005).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
(admitted 2010).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (admitted 2010).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (admitted 2015).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (admitted 2001).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (admitted 2016).
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (admitted 2006).
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (admitted
2010).
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
(admitted 2002).
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
(admitted 2002).
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(admitted 2003).
U.S. Court of Federal Claims (admitted 2009).
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate
dating back to the age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services
rendered to all political parties or election committees,
currently and during the last 10 years prior to the date of
your nomination.
Romney Justice Advisory Committee (2011-2012).
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual,
campaign organization, political party, political action
committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for the past 10
years prior to the date of your nomination.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recipient Date Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Adams for Virginia 6/08/2016 $803.46
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Berry for Congress 11/18/2009 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
George P. Bush Land Commissioner 1/04/2013 $250.00
campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeb 2016 (Jeb Bush) 10/05/2015 $2,700.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capito for West Virginia (Shelley Moore 4/24/2013 $500.00
Capito)
7/22/2014 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cotton for Senate (Thomas Cotton) 10/24/2013 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Crapo for U.S. Senate 8/06/2015 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Cruz for Senate 6/30/2011 $300.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Ehrlich, Jr. gubernatorial 7/28/2010 $250.00
campaign
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Foley for Connecticut (Thomas C. Foley) 4/22/2014 $100.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Freedom First PAC 7/29/2010 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Gillespie for Governor 1/23/2017 $2,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Gillespie for Senate 3/06/2014 $2,600.00
7/17/2014 $500.00
9/25/2014 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Laxalt Attorney General campaign 5/14/2014 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friends of Mike Lee 6/19/2015 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Mandel Senate Victory Committee 9/21/2012 $300.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Justice for All 10/04/2013 $300.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRCC 7/19/2010 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NRSC/NRCC Victory Committee 11/13/2013 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Portman for Senate Committee (Rob 6/16/2009 $250.00
Portman)
8/15/2010 $250.00
5/14/2015 $1,500.00
9/27/2016 $500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Pepper mayoral campaign 6/01/2009 $250.00
9/29/2010 $150.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prosperity Action 6/30/2011 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romney for President (Mitt Romney) 5/09/2011 $1,000.00
1/31/2012 $1,500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romney Victory 5/24/2012 $2,500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Sasse for U.S. Senate 9/16/2013 $1,000.00
3/31/2014 $1,000.00
11/28/2016 $1,000.00
12/31/2018 $1,000.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shelby for U.S. Senate (Richard C. 10/13/2015 $1 ,000.00
Shelby)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elise for Congress (Elise M. Stefanik) 11/21/2013 $250.00
9/21/2016 $500.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sullivan for U.S. Senate (Dan Sullivan) 10/28/2013 $250.00
------------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary
degrees, honorary society memberships, military medals, and any other
special recognitions for outstanding service or achievement received
since the age of 18):
Alvin and Arvella Bentley Scholar (University of Michigan).
Benedek London Scholarship (University of Michigan).
Distinguished Alumni Award (Williamston High School).
Distinguished Legal Writing Award 2016, Burton Awards for Legal
Achievement.
Horace Rackham Scholar (University of Michigan).
James B. Angell Scholar (University of Michigan).
National Merit Scholar.
New York Law Journal 2013 ``Rising Star.''
Phi Beta Kappa (University of Michigan).
Pi Sigma Alpha political science honor society (University of
Michigan).
Presidential Scholar (U.S. Department of Education).
U.S. Department of State Superior Honor Award (group award).
Yale Law Journal, articles editor (Yale Law School).
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and
hyperlinks (as applicable) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts,
or other published materials you have written):
``City Fair Housing Suits May Have Unfortunate Consequences,''
Law360 (November 15, 2016). https://www.law360.com/articles/
860830/city-fair-housing-suits-may-have-unfortunate-
consequences.
``D.C. Circuit Invalidates CFPB Structure as Unconstitutional;
Rejects `Flawed' Statutory Application in Enforcement
Proceeding,'' Columbia Law School Blue Sky Blog (October 20,
2016) (with Steven Meyer et al.), http://clsbluesky
.law.columbia.edu/2016/10/20/sullivan-cromwell-discusses-d-c-
circuit-ruling-invalidating-cfpb-structure/.
``On Apple, the FBI, and Old iPhones,'' Federalist Society Blog
(February 18, 2016), https://fedsoc.org/commentary/bloq-posts/
on-apple-the-fbi-and-old-iphones.
``A Guide to the Cybersecurity Act of 2015,'' Law360 (January
12, 2016) (with John Evangelakos et al.), https://
www.law360.com/articles/745523/a-guide-to-the-cybersecurity-
act-of-2015.
``The Cybersecurity Act of 2015,'' Columbia Law School Blue Sky
Blog (January 6, 2016) (with John Evatigelakos et al.), http://
clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2016/01/06/sullivan-cromwell-
discusses-the-cybersecurity-act-of-2015/.
``SEC Enforcement: SEC Issues Guidance on Approach to Forum
Selection in Contested Actions,'' Columbia Law School Blue Sky
Blog (June 15, 2015) (with Nicolas Bourtin et al.), http://
clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2015/06/15/Sullivan-cromwell-
discusses-sec-guidance-on-approach-to-forum-selection-in-
contested-actions/.
``How Cybercriminals Are Targeting Corporate Transactions,''
Law360 (May 19, 2015) (with Judson Littleton), https://
www.law360.com/articles/657836/how-cybercriminals-are-
targeting-corporate-transactions.
``President Obama Issues Executive Order Authorizing Sanctions
for Malicious Cyber Activities,'' Columbia Law School Blue Sky
Blog (April 17, 2015) (with Eric Kadel, Jr.), http://
clsbluesky.law.columbia.edu/2015/04/17/sullivan-cromwell-
discusses-president-obamas-executive-order-authorizing-
sanctions-for-malicious-cyber-activities/.
`` `The FBI Followed You': Why Twitter's Surveillance-
Disclosure Lawsuit Puts U.S. Intel Agencies in a Quandary,''
Law.com (April 16, 2015), https://www.law.com/sites/
brentmcintosh/2015/04/16/twitter-surveillance-lawsuit/
?slreturn=20190429112917.
Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association, Harvard Law School Forum
on Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (March 29,
2015) (with Jeffrey Wall et al.), https://
corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2015/03/29/perez-v-mortgage-bankers-
association/.
``Supreme Court Clarifies Liability for Opinions in
Registration Statements,'' Harvard Law School Forum on
Corporate Governance and Financial Regulation (March 28, 2015)
(with Robert Giuffra Jr. et al.), https://corpgov.
law.harvard.edu/2015/03/28/supreme-court-clarifies-liability-
for-opinions-in-registration-statements/.
`` `An Emblem of a Deeper Pathology in the Criminal Code':
Thoughts on the Supreme Court's Ruling That, Sometimes, Fish
Aren't Tangible Objects,'' Law.com (March 4, 2015), https://
www.law.com/sites/brentmcintosh/2015/03/04/fish_
are_not_tangible_objects/.
Judicial Review of SEC Consent Judgments, 47 Review of
Securities and Commodities Regulation 275 (December 3, 2014)
(hyperlink not found).
``Second Circuit Adopts Bright-Line Rule for Determining
Customer Status for Mandatory FINRA Arbitration,'' Business Law
Today (September 2014) (with Robert Giuffra Jr. et al.)
(hyperlink not found).
``As End of Supreme Court Term Looms, High-Profile Business
Disputes Remain,'' Law.com (May 24, 2014) (hyperlink not
functional; see https://www.law.com/sites/brentmcintosh/).
Class of 1999 Class Notes, Yale Law Report (2013-present) (with
Brad Snyder) (hyperlinks not found).
``Patriot Act Protects U.S.,'' Lansing State Journal (March 19,
2006) (hyperlink not found).
``The Revolutionary Second Amendment,'' 51 Alabama Law Review
673 (2000), https://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/lrarticles/Volume%2051/
Issue%202/McIntosh.pdf.
As a student journalist in college (1993-1996), numerous
articles in the Lansing State Journal; The Michigan Daily
(University of Michigan student newspaper), and The Alumnus
(University of Michigan alumni magazine), primarily regarding
University of Michigan and mid-Michigan sports.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g.,
PowerPoint) you have delivered during the past 5 years which are on
topics relevant to the position for which you have been nominated,
including dates. Provide the committee with one digital copy of each
formal speech and presentation).
To the best of my recollection, the formal speeches or
presentations I have given that might be considered relevant to
the position for which I have been nominated are as follows
(remarks provided are as prepared for delivery).
Reviewing the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
U.S. Senate, Subcommittee on Regulatory Affairs and Federal
Management, April 2018.
Regulatory Reform, the Treasury Department, and More,
Federalist Society DC Chapter, March 2018.
Hearing to Consider the Nominations of Eric D. Hargan, David
Malpass, Andrew K. Maloney, and Brent James McIntosh, U.S.
Senate, Committee on Finance, June 2017.
I have also occasionally participated in panels, question-and-
answer sessions, and moderated discussions without prepared
remarks. To the best of my recollection, those that might be
considered relevant to the position for which I have been
nominated are the following:
Regulatory Reform Report Card: Agency General Counsel
Perspective, Federalist Society Executive Branch Review
Conference, May 2019 (panelist).
Leaders in Finance: A Conversation to Strengthen America's
Economy, Milken Institute Global Conference, April 2019
(panelist).
Women in Housing and Finance Annual Symposium, April 2019
(moderated discussion).
American Bankers Association Government Relations Council,
April 2019 (moderated discussion).
Treasury's Role in Advancing U.S. National Security, George
Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School National Security
Institute Distinguished Speaker Series, March 2019 (moderated
discussion).
The Role of Financial Institutions in National Security,
Institute of International Bankers Annual Washington
Conference, March 2019 (moderated discussion).
Dollars and Diplomacy: Treasury's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy,
Alexander Hamilton Society New York Initiative, March 2019
(moderated discussion).
Dollars and Diplomacy: Treasury's Role in U.S. Foreign Policy,
Columbia Law School National Security Program/Alexander
Hamilton Society Columbia University Chapter, March 2019
(moderated discussion).
Financial Tools and the National Security, Yale Law School
Federalist Society, March 2019 (moderated discussion).
Stability vs. Growth: Unintended Consequences of Post Crisis
Financial Regulations, Milken Institute London Summit, December
2018 (panelist).
FinTech: Regulators Take the Stage, U.S. Chamber of Commerce
Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness/Chamber Technology
Engagement Center, November 2018 (moderated discussion).
How Should Our Existing Regulatory Structure Be Applied to
Support an
Activities-Based Approach? U.S. Department of the Treasury
Office of Financial Research/University of Michigan Center on
Finance, Law, and Policy Conference on Functions and Firms:
Using Activity- and Entity-Based Regulation to Strengthen the
Financial System, November 2018 (panel moderator).
ICOs, Air Drops and the Future of Regulating Decentralized
Money, Money 20/20 conference October 2018 (panelist).
American Banker RegTech 2018 conference, October 2018
(moderated discussion).
The Future of Financial Regulation; Manhattan Institute/George
Mason University Antonin Scalia Law School Center for the Study
of the Administrative State, October 2018 (panelist).
Tax and Regulatory Reform, American Swiss Foundation Building
Bridges Conference, September 2018 (panelist).
Fintech, a Double-edged Sword for AML/CFT, International
Monetary Fund 2018 Law and Financial Stability High-Level
seminar, September 2018 (panelist).
Reg Reference Center, sponsored by the American Action Forum;
the Mercatus Center, and the George Washington University
Regulatory Studies Center, July 2018 (panelist).
Interagency Functions, Alexander Hamilton Society National
Institute 2018, June 2018 (panelist).
Financial Regulation in the 21st Century: Perspectives From the
Treasury Department, Financial Services Roundtable Spring
Meeting of Lawyers Council, May 2018 (question-and-answer
session).
Cryptocurrencies: Irrational Exuberance or Brave New World?,
Milken Institute Global Conference, May 2018 (panelist).
Decrypting Crypto: Policy, Security, and Regulatory Challenge,
YPO-George Mason University National Security Institute
Blockchain Technologies Summit, March 2018 (panelist).
American Bankers Association Regional General Counsels Meeting,
November 2017 (moderated discussion).
Regulatory Reform Update, U.S. Department of the Treasury,
October 2017 (panelist).
Prospects for Cybersecurity in the Donald J. Trump
administration, Council on Foreign Relations roundtable, March
2017 (presider).
Financial Markets in the Aftermath of Cyberattacks, University
of Virginia Symposium on Impediments to the Global Economy,
February 2016 (panelist).
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to
serve in the position to which you have been nominated):
Serving for nearly 2 years as the Senate-confirmed General
Counsel for the Treasury Department has afforded me the
invaluable opportunity to advise on and participate in the work
of Treasury's Office of International Affairs. I have been
fortunate to work closely with former Under Secretary David
Malpass, Acting Under Secretary Heath Tarbert, and the
talented, dedicated professionals in International Affairs.
This close working relationship has brought me to be deeply
involved in many of the key issues that International Affairs
confronts, including international financial regulatory
matters, Treasury's work with multilateral development banks,
issues relating to currency and monetary policy, bilateral and
multilateral economic relationships with our foreign partners,
sovereign debt, trade, and investment security. As to the last
of these, one paramount challenge the next Under Secretary will
confront is implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review
Modernization Act of 2018 while ensuring the continued
effective functioning of the CFIUS process. I have worked
extensively with International Affairs colleagues on
implementation of this landmark legislation and on CFIUS
matters more generally.
In addition, my prior service in government and in private
practice should provide important background and experience, if
I am confirmed. My law practice focused on the resolution of
difficult, often novel disputes, including analyzing
complicated problems, advocating for my clients' positions, and
negotiating workable solutions to complex problems. Much of my
professional career involved advising multinational entities
participating in the global financial system, affording me
substantial familiarity with many financial, regulatory, and
economic issues International Affairs handles. While in
government at the Treasury Department, the White House, and the
Department of Justice, I worked extensively with interagency
colleagues and foreign partners on a wide variety of foreign
affairs and national security matters. Finally, both in
government and in private practice, I have managed large teams
of professionals.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future
benefit arrangements) with your present employers, business firms,
associations, or organizations if you are confirmed by the Senate? If
not, provide details.
The position for which I have been nominated is with my present
employer, and I have no other such employment relationships.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue
outside employment, with or without compensation, during your service
with the government? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ
your services in any capacity after you leave government service? If
so, provide details.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out
your full term or until the next presidential election, whichever is
applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations,
liabilities, or other personal relationships, including spousal or
family employment, which could involve potential conflicts of interest
in the position to which you have been nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian J. Sonfield, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, l will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial
transaction which you have had during the last 10 years (prior to the
date of your nomination), whether for yourself, on behalf of a client,
or acting as an agent, that could in any way constitute or result in a
possible conflict of interest in the position to which you have been
nominated.
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of my
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian J. Sonfield, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date
of your nomination) in which you have engaged for the purpose of
directly or indirectly influencing the passage, defeat, or modification
of any legislation or affecting the administration and execution of law
or public policy. Activities performed as an employee of the Federal
government need not be listed.
Other than as a lawyer representing clients in adversarial or
regulatory proceedings, none.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest,
including any that are disclosed by your responses to the above items.
(Provide the committee with two copies of any trust or other
agreements.)
Any potential conflicts of interest have been identified and
resolved in accordance with the terms and conditions of any
ethics agreement with the Department of the Treasury, which is
documented by letter to Brian J. Sonfield, Designated Agency
Ethics Official and Assistant General Counsel for General Law
and Ethics. Should any potential conflict of interest arise in
the future, I will seek guidance from a Treasury ethics
official.
5. Two copies of written opinions should be provided directly to the
committee by the designated agency ethics officer of the agency to
which you have been nominated and by the Office of Government Ethics
concerning potential conflicts of interest or any legal impediments to
your serving in this position.
None.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been
investigated, disciplined, or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics
for unprofessional conduct before any court, administrative agency
(e.g., an Inspector General's office), professional association,
disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any time?
Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless
of the outcome.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any
Federal, State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of
any Federal, State, county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance,
other than a minor traffic offense? Have you ever been interviewed
regarding your own conduct as part of any such inquiry or
investigation? If so, provide details.
In 1994, when I was a sophomore in college, I was charged with
one misdemeanor count of ``Receiving stolen property--$100 or
less.'' The charge was subsequently dropped.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any
administrative agency proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide
details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo
contendere) of any criminal violation other than a minor traffic
offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information,
favorable or unfavorable, which you feel should be considered in
connection with your nomination.
None.
E TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and
testify before any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such
occasions as you may be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide
such information as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to Hon. Brent James McIntosh
Questions Submitted by Hon. Ron Wyden
salt workaround regulations and inconsistent
interpretation of 2017 tax law
Question. The 2017 Republican tax law partially paid for massive
tax cuts for corporations, the wealthy, and passthrough businesses by
limiting the deduction for State and local taxes to $10,000.
This was a rifle-shot at constituents in high cost of living States
like Oregon, Washington, New York, New Jersey, and others.
While I wasn't a fan of the SALT cap, I am even more concerned
about recent Treasury regulations that reach far beyond what was
contained in the 2017 Republican tax law. These regulations effectively
extend the $10,000 SALT cap to include State tax credit programs.
These regulations reversed the long-standing IRS position that
taxpayers are entitled to a full charitable deduction, even if they
receive State tax credits in return for their contribution.
Could you please tell me where in the 2017 tax law it instructs the
Treasury Department to limit charitable deductions for donations for
State tax credit programs?
Answer. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act did not amend section 170 of the
Internal Revenue Code. The proposed and final regulations to which your
question refers are based on the application of longstanding Federal
income tax principles under section 170. Specifically, under section
170, any benefit received or expected to be received by a donor in
return for making a donation to a charitable organization reduces the
amount of any Federal charitable contribution deduction for such
donation.
On September 5, 2018, Secretary Mnuchin announced these regulations
wouldn't apply to businesses that make donations to private school
voucher programs, with the strong backing of Republican Senators.
Question. Could you tell me where in the 2017 tax law it said that
school voucher programs should get a special deal?
Answer. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act does not make distinctions among
State tax credit programs. Likewise, Treasury and IRS regulations and
guidance on this issue apply equally to all such programs.
It appears that Treasury as a general matter is picking and
choosing when it wants to use broad authority in regulations issued
under the 2017 tax law.
Question. Could you please provide guidance on how you determine
the expansiveness of your regulatory authority in interpreting the 2017
tax law?
Answer. The scope of Treasury's regulatory authority under the Tax
Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) is a matter of statutory interpretation. As a
result, the answer to this question is highly context-dependent. It
requires interpreting the terms of the particular grant of rulemaking
authority being invoked and, as importantly, the language of the
substantive Internal Revenue Code provision or provisions being
implemented. Under title 26, Congress has provided general and specific
grants of rulemaking authority. Section 7805 confers authority to
``prescribe all needful rules and regulations for enforcement of [title
26],'' including ``all rules and regulations as may be necessary by
reason of any alteration of law in relation to internal revenue.''
Treasury has relied on these general grants of authority to implement
some provisions of TCJA. In addition, Congress often includes specific
grants of authority to implement particular provisions of the code;
TCJA contains at least 72 such specific grants of authority. Some of
those specific grants provide explicit indication of the nature of the
regulatory authority Congress expected Treasury to exercise, such as
directives to adopt anti-abuse rules, to provide special rules for
applying a general rule to specified situations, or to implement new
information reporting requirements.
The attorneys of the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy
(OTP) and the IRS Office of Chief Counsel have primary responsibility
for legal analysis of tax regulatory actions; the Office of General
Counsel relies on their analysis and expertise in the review of all tax
regulatory actions. Our general approach to statutory interpretation is
described in the response to the question below.
Treasury's Office of Tax Policy and Office of General Counsel would
be pleased to provide your staff with a briefing or additional
information on any particular interpretation adopted in TCJA
implementing regulations.
Question. What principles of statutory interpretation are you
applying in developing regulations under that law?
Answer. The approach of the Treasury Office of General Counsel is
to follow the Supreme Court's guidance governing agency interpretations
of Federal statutes. The best evidence of congressional intent is the
text of the statute. We also consider statutory context and structure,
as well as how similar statutory language has been interpreted by
Treasury in the past. The provisions of the Internal Revenue Code are
often deeply interconnected, so we take particular care to analyze how
Congress intended a new provision to work with existing code
provisions. When the text does not resolve a question of
interpretation, courts have indicated that a review of legislative
history may help elucidate the meaning of a statutory provision.
In some cases, even after applying all of the traditional tools of
statutory construction, a statutory provision may remain ambiguous. In
such cases, in the context of TCJA, Treasury's goal is generally to
adopt the construction that best effectuates congressional intent, as
Treasury's senior policymakers understand it.
treasury obstruction of dark money congressional review
Question. I oppose any attempts to make it easier for illegal and
foreign money to influence our political process. That's why I have
been fighting the Treasury Department's rule change that stopped
requiring dark money groups to disclose the identities of their major
donors to the IRS.
Last year, shortly after IRS issued its dark money rule, Senator
Tester and I introduced a resolution to overturn the rule under the
Congressional Review Act (CRA). It should have been a straight-forward
process--the Treasury Department even filed the paperwork with the
Senate stating that this was a rule subject to the CRA.
But when Treasury found out that Senator Tester and I were planning
to overturn the rule, they sent us a letter asking for a ``do-over.''
They simultaneously claimed that they were eligible for the legal
benefits of the Congressional Review Act, but also that we weren't
allowed to challenge the rule under that same CRA provision.
It was clear in my mind that Treasury was waging a frivolous legal
battle in an attempt to obstruct congressional action. Treasury managed
to tie up our CRA process for five weeks. Some months later, the GAO
eventually weighed in with its own, independent legal opinion finding
Treasury's ``do-over'' argument meritless.
My concern is that the Treasury Department was clearly trying to
impede Congress's right to vote on the dark money rule.
My question is this: is it ever appropriate for the Treasury
Department to play legal games to obstruct the Senate's right to
legislate?
Answer. No, that would not be appropriate. It is my understanding
that in connection with Rev. Proc. 2018-38, the IRS explained to GAO
the IRS's approach to Congressional Review Act analysis both with
respect to Rev. Proc. 2018-38 and more broadly, and that, in response
to several developments including GAO's 2018 opinion, the Office of
Chief Counsel has enhanced its review of IRS guidance prior to
submission under the CRA process.
g7/g20 leadership
Question. The United States has long played a crucial role in the
global economy by confronting systemic challenges and working with
like-minded partners to address the tough problems. We know that the
big stuff requires collective action.
At the summits like the G7 and G20, consensus-based statements
reflect the collective views of the United States and our allies on
major issues such as monetary policy, security, and multilateral rules-
based trading. Rather than working with allies to find areas of
agreement and make progress toward addressing our collective
challenges, the Trump administration has a record of unnecessarily
isolating the United States on everything from climate change to trade.
Do you agree with me that it is critical for the United States to
refocus our efforts with our allies in the G7, G20, APEC and other
international fora to find solutions to the major issues facing the
United States and the world?
Answer. The United States continues to play a lead role in
international fora such as the G7, G20, and APEC. As part of this
engagement, Treasury is advancing a robust international policy agenda
on issues such as risks and challenges to global growth, a
comprehensive solution to the taxation of digital companies, measures
to enhance debt transparency and sustainability for low-income
countries, and the application of anti-money laundering standards to
virtual assets and crypto-currencies. Greater international cooperation
on these issues will lead to stronger global growth, which in turn will
directly benefit the U.S. economy.
treasury ethics
Question. As General Counsel, you oversee the Treasury Department's
ethics office. During your tenure, the Office of Government Ethics
(OGE) refused to certify Secretary Mnuchin's 2018 Financial Disclosure
report because he acted on advice that Department ethics officials
provided without consulting OGE. The Director of OGE--a Trump
appointee--determined that your ethics office essentially told the
Secretary he could ignore his own Ethics Agreement. Government ethics
experts say it is extremely rare for cabinet officials not to have
their financial records certified. Yet, that happened on your watch.
What does that say about your enforcement of ethics rules at the
Treasury Department? What message does that send to the Department's
employees when the Secretary of the Treasury fails to comply with
ethics rules?
Answer. This question addresses advice that Treasury's career
ethics officials gave prior to my arrival at Treasury. With regard to
the Secretary's 2018 financial disclosure report, it is my
understanding that the Secretary's disclosures were complete and
accurate and that the Secretary was in compliance with all applicable
ethics laws. Although the underlying events occurred prior to my
arrival at Treasury, I have come to understand that prior to the
Secretary's 2017 confirmation, the Office of Government Ethics listed a
particular asset for divestiture in the Secretary's Ethics Agreement,
and the Secretary in fact divested that asset. At a later date in early
2017, prior to the Secretary's wedding, the Secretary sought the advice
of the Department's then-serving career ethics official because his
fiancee held the same asset, meaning her interest would be imputed to
the Secretary once they married. The Department's career ethics
officials reviewed the asset in question and correctly determined that
it presented no conflict with the Secretary's official duties, and so
advised that his fiancee need not divest her interest in that asset.
(Treasury's ethics attorneys had initially identified this asset for
divestiture only out of an abundance of caution, and subsequent review
established that it presented no conflict.) The Secretary relied on
this advice, and his fiancee did not divest her interest. Upon learning
of this advice, OGE acknowledged that it was not aware of any conflict
posed by the asset in question or of any violation of any ethics law as
a result of the imputed interest, but nonetheless declined to certify
the Secretary's financial disclosure. With OGE's consent, the
Secretary's Ethics Agreement was subsequently amended to reflect the
advice of Treasury's career ethics officials. I have immense respect
for Treasury's career ethics officials, I rely heavily on their advice
as to the requirements of applicable ethics laws, and I believe that it
is appropriate for the Department's senior officials to seek and rely
on those career ethics officials' guidance.
china/currency negotiations
Question. USTR has publicly stated that Treasury is leading the
currency negotiations that were reportedly concluded with respect to
Korea and are ongoing with China. If confirmed, you will be leading the
team negotiating the China currency agreements.
Will you commit to brief Congress in a timely manner on the
substance of these and any other currency negotiations?
Answer. If confirmed, I commit to keeping Congress appropriately
apprised of ongoing currency negotiations.
Question. Is it appropriate to agree to binding obligations on the
United States with regard to monetary policy, as part of a negotiation
intended to settle claims regarding China's unfair trade practices? If
it is appropriate, please explain why.
Answer. No, that would not be appropriate. It is my understanding
that no agreement with China would result in binding obligations with
regard to U.S. monetary policy. The ability of an independent Federal
Reserve to pursue its dual objectives of low inflation and high
employment should not be restricted.
Question. If confirmed, will you commit to immediately make the
currency agreement with Korea public?
Answer. If confirmed, I intend to be as transparent as possible,
consistent with our international commitments and national interest.
It is critical that allies support our views on China's unfair
trade practices and reiterate our concerns regarding intellectual
property theft, forced technology transfer, and steel and aluminum
overcapacity to China. However, it is difficult for our allies to
support our attempts to address China's unfair trade practices when we
are also placing tariffs on their imports in order to gain leverage in
other, unrelated negotiations.
Question. If confirmed, how will you seek support from our allies
to address China's unfair trade practices, and what would you ask
allies to do, to demonstrate their support?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue our efforts to seek support
from allies to address our shared concerns with respect to China's
unfair trade and investment policies. China's use of subsidies for
State-owned enterprises and other forms of industrial policies create
distortions in the global economy. The market access and structural
reforms that we are pushing China to undertake would benefit U.S. firms
as well as foreign firms. I will continue efforts to coordinate with
allies through the G7 as well as through bilateral engagement.
cfius
Question. In its dealings with Huawei, ZTE, and others, this
administration has demonstrated its willingness to put national
security issues on the table when seeking economic or trade deals from
our trading partners. As chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Investment in the United States (CFIUS), Secretary Mnuchin is
responsible for evaluating the national security implications of
specific foreign investments and recommending whether to modify or
reject them. In this capacity, CFIUS is intended to focus solely on
genuine national security concerns raised by a covered transaction, and
not on other national interests.
Do you agree that genuine national security concerns should be the
key factor when determining whether to reject or modify a proposed
investment? What steps will you take to mitigate the risk of other
factors, including geopolitical concerns, trade policy, or other
conflicts, influencing the Secretary's decisions on CFIUS matters?
Answer. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
(CFIUS) evaluates each covered transaction notified to CFIUS for the
sole purpose of determining whether any threat to the national security
of the United States would arise from the transaction. Consistent with
section 721 of the Defense Production Act, CFIUS produces a risk-based
analysis of any risks to the national security that would arise as a
result of the transaction, considering in each case the particular
threat, vulnerabilities, and consequences associated with the
transaction. As Chair of CFIUS, Treasury is committed to ensuring this
rigorous analysis is conducted for each covered transaction, as
required by law.
digital sales tax/oecd process
Question. During the nominations hearing on July 24, 2019, you
recognized the importance of a multilateral approach and, in
particular, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) process, in addressing the tax challenges created by the
digitalization of the economy.
Please describe the concrete steps you will take to identify and
implement a strategy for engagement at the OECD on resolving the DST
issue. Please describe the interagency and international engagement
necessary to achieve a successful outcome at the OECD.
Answer. The Treasury Department believes all companies--regardless
of nationality or economic sector--should pay fair rates of taxation.
Treasury recognizes that changes in business practices in the
increasingly digitalized, 21st-century global economy are challenging
the decades-old global consensus on the rules for allocating taxing
rights among countries. As a result, the United States--in particular,
the Treasury Department--is leading efforts in the OECD to reach
consensus on new international tax rules. In the OECD, we are working
with 131 countries on a multilateral solution. We seek a global
consensus for new rules that will ensure all companies pay fair rates
of taxation while also (i) providing certainty to taxpayers; (ii)
minimizing administrative burdens; (iii) avoiding double taxation; and
(iv) addressing transfer pricing and nexus issues that arise with
respect to digital and non-
digital businesses.
Treasury is fully committed to seeing the multilateral OECD process
succeed. We believe that the ongoing work is on a good course and that
the Program of Work approved by the Inclusive Framework provides a path
to deliver a global consensus on new rules by the end of 2020. While we
are addressing important and complicated issues in the OECD, we are
unfortunately also seeing a disturbing trend of some governments,
especially in Europe, politicizing the complex issue of achieving
genuine fairness in the rules for allocating taxing rights. This
regrettable trend is seen most clearly in unilateral DSTs.
With regard to this engagement, Treasury is coordinating closely
with all critical stakeholders in the executive branch, including the
Department of State and relevant embassies, the Department of Commerce,
and the U.S. Trade Representative, through an interagency policy
coordination committee process. The Department also believes a robust
engagement with the Congress is vital to achieving these ends, and, if
confirmed, I look forward to working with members of the committee on
this vital issue.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Catherine Cortez Masto
Question. On July 16, 2018, the Treasury Department issued Rev.
Proc. 2018-38, which eliminated the requirement for tax-exempt ``dark
money'' organizations to report the identities of major donors. This
rule change will significantly hamper the ability of the IRS, law
enforcement, and intelligence organizations to police the laundering of
funds through our political system. The Office of General Counsel
provides legal and policy advice to the Treasury Secretary, and
Secretary Mnuchin decided he would no longer collect donor information
for certain nonprofit organizations that may engage in political
activities. The Treasury Secretary relied on General Counsel's legal
analyses to justify these actions.
Please provide me with exactly and specifically what role you had
in that decision and the drafting of the legal justification.
Answer. I was aware that the Internal Revenue Service intended to
relieve certain categories of 501(c) organizations of the obligation to
report donor information, while still maintaining that information for
inspection upon IRS request. I do not recall having had any role in
preparing the IRS's legal justification for doing so, but I believe
that the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2018-38 based on the IRS's
determination that the inclusion of personally identifiable donor
information on Form 990 is ``not necessary for the efficient
administration of the internal revenue laws,'' Rev. Proc. 2018-38
(quoting 26 CFR Sec. 1.6033-2(g)(6)).
Question. Who lobbied or engaged the Department for Rev. Proc.
2018-38? Please provide me and this committee a list of organizations
and interest groups that the Department met with, either publicly or
privately, before the decision was released?
Answer. I do not recall having had any involvement in or awareness
of any engagement with external parties regarding Rev. Proc. 2018-38.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Michael F. Bennet
Question. During your time as General Counsel, did anyone at the
White House or the administration request that: (a) you or someone in
your office intervene in a personal tax matter that was within the
purview of IRS's tax administration or enforcement responsibilities;
(b) you or someone in your office intervene in a personal matter
related to the work of Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial
Intelligence, including the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN); (c) a staff member at
the Treasury Department intervene in a personal tax matter that was
within the purview of IRS's tax administration or enforcement
responsibilities; (d) a staff member at the Treasury Department
intervene in a personal matter related to the work of Treasury's Office
of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence, including the Office of
Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) or Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
(FinCEN)?
If yes to any of the above, please provide information about those
contacts to the committee--including the person contacting you or
another Treasury employee, the reason for the contact, and the nature
of the request.
Answer. I am not aware of any such requests.
Question. If you are confirmed as Under Secretary, will you be
committed to remaining independent of the administration, and keep the
Department free from outside political influence?
Answer. Under Article II of the Constitution and the laws
establishing the Department of the Treasury, each Under Secretary of
the Treasury is an officer of the executive branch. If confirmed, I
would fulfill those duties assigned to me in a manner consistent with
the Constitution and laws, without regard to any improper political
influence.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert Menendez
Question. If confirmed, you will play an important role in
implementing America's foreign policy priorities. One such priority is
the fight against human trafficking. Human trafficking is a $150
billion a year crime with over 20 million victims around the world. The
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2017, which I
authored and was passed unanimously by both houses of Congress,
requires the Department of the Treasury to advocate for better anti-
trafficking safeguards and interventions in multilateral development
bank projects. If confirmed as Under Secretary for International
Affairs, you will have the ability to exert influence on the
multilateral development banks, to get them to leverage their projects
in smart ways that prevent trafficking and to encourage borrowing
countries to increase their own efforts to combat trafficking.
If confirmed, will you commit to making this a priority and to
working with my office to ensure effective implementation of the law?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you and
your staff on this important matter.
I am increasingly concerned that the United States is not well
positioned to engage in economic statecraft for the 21st century--
including promoting U.S. jobs, business and economic interests,
engaging in development financing for infrastructure and other needs,
including climate change-related resiliency, and setting standards for
emergent technologies and the digital economy.
Question. Can you expand upon how you would view your role, if
confirmed, in helping to renew and replenish U.S. economic statecraft
instruments?
Answer. The Treasury Department, including in particular its
International Affairs division, is committed to advancing American
interests abroad in all matters within its remit. Doing so requires
well-considered strategic shepherding of the various economic and
financial matters committed to Treasury's care, ensuring at all times
that Treasury's authorities are deployed judiciously, with a clear-eyed
focus on the effects that actions abroad will have on individual
Americans. For International Affairs, this includes ensuring that the
CFIUS process is focused vigilantly and precisely on national security
threats posed by inbound transactions, all while preserving the open
investment environment that has made the United States the best place
in the world to invest; that Treasury's engagement with the World Bank,
the IMF, and other multilateral bodies is consistent with and designed
to advance American national interests; that those portions of trade
negotiations that fall within Treasury's authorities result in
arrangements that benefit Americans and the American economy; that
international taxing arrangements are fair to American taxpayers and
American companies, and do not discriminate against them; and that
economic agreements and technical assistance are deployed in ways that
foster partnerships with foreign countries that are broadly beneficial
to American interests.
Question. Where do you see the biggest challenges and biggest
opportunities?
Answer. While challenges and opportunities with regard to America's
economic interests are constantly evolving with world events,
International Affairs is--and must be--focused on certain issues that
present both challenges and opportunities. For one, the modernization
of America's CFIUS investment security regime pursuant to the recent
bipartisan FIRRMA legislation must satisfy dual imperatives: preventing
the weaponization of foreign investment in U.S. companies while
preserving the open investment environment that has made the United
States the world's most attractive investment destination. For another,
confronting market-distorting policies advanced by certain competitors
so as to protect American jobs, American technological leadership, and
American competitiveness is a challenge that must be contested on a
wide variety of fronts, including through bilateral negotiations and
through U.S. influence at multilateral bodies. For yet another, pushing
for high-standard lending to low-income countries--lending that is
transparent and sustainable and in the best interests of the borrowing
country--presents both an opportunity to secure greater economic
stability around the world and a challenge to bring about reform in the
lending and borrowing practices of those countries that have not
adopted best practices and thus have had a derogatory effect on
international economic stability. If addressed prudently and
effectively, all of these matters have the potential to benefit
individual Americans.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Robert P. Casey, Jr.
Question. As you know, Rev. Proc. 2018-38 was issued on July 16,
2018. When did you conduct your legal review of Rev. Proc. 2018-38?
Answer. I am aware that lawyers in the Office of General Counsel
reviewed the IRS's Rev. Proc. 2018-38 for any legal issues, as they do
for many tax rules and guidance, but I do not recall having myself
reviewed that revenue procedure.
Question. Were you involved in the drafting of the response I
received from the IRS on July 23, 2019 regarding Rev. Proc. 2018-38?
Answer. Not that I recall.
Question. If so, what sections did you draft, review, or provide
advice on?
Answer. I do not recall having been involved in the drafting of the
response in question.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. John Cornyn
Question. The North American Development Bank has helped finance a
total of 257 infrastructure projects in its 25 year history. In Texas,
the Bank has financed 56 projects providing $605 million in loans and
grants, and has leveraged that amount for $1.76 billion in total
investment. The Bank continues to provide critical resources that help
improve the quality of life for a total of 17 million U.S.-Mexico
border residents. I have introduced legislation that would authorize
the Bank moving forward and further support its activities.
Do you support the effort to further capitalize and expand the
North American Development Bank?
Answer. At Treasury, we support the North American Development
Bank's mission to foster growth and development on our shared border
with Mexico. I am confident that in carrying out its mission, NADB can
do more to advance the economic well-being of the people of the United
States and Mexico. We are committed to working with our Mexican
partners on the development of a new strategy for NADB to boost its
ability to create economic opportunities, enrich communities, and
improve the quality of life along both sides of the border. We
recognize that a new strategy could benefit from greater resources and
will consider whether additional capital would improve the NADB's
ability to realize our ambitions. I understand that the administration
has asked Congress to authorize a $10-million purchase of shares,
having already appropriated the funds, so that the U.S. can maintain
its 50-percent ownership share of NADB.
______
Questions Submitted by Hon. Maria Cantwell
Question. I believe the United States must work with other
countries to address concerns about China--from theft of intellectual
property to barriers to market access. Both bilateral and multilateral
dialogue are very important.
The office you were nominated to lead heads up Treasury's role in
bilateral discussions with China. It previously led the Strategic and
Economic Dialogue (S&ED), the U.S.-China Joint Commission on Commerce
and Trade (JCCT), and the U.S.-China Comprehensive Economic Dialogue.
Unfortunately, these dialogues were frozen by the Trump administration.
How will you ensure that the United States maintains regular
ongoing dialogue with China on commercial and economic issues?
Answer. The United States and China have resumed dialogue on an
enforceable trade deal, as President Trump and President Xi agreed to
do during their meeting at the G20 in Osaka, Japan. Our discussions
will center on protecting intellectual property, stopping forced
technology transfers, opening China's markets, and other needed
structural reforms. With respect to non-trade economic issues, Treasury
also regularly engages with its counterparts from the Chinese Ministry
of Finance, the People's Bank of China, and other Chinese financial
regulators at multilateral meetings such as the G20, IMF, World Bank,
APEC, and the Financial Stability Board.
Question. How will you coordinate with other allies like Europe and
Japan on China?
Answer. Through Treasury's regular bilateral engagements with our
European and Japanese counterparts, as well as our active participation
in multilateral forums such as the G7, G20, and the Paris Club,
Treasury routinely coordinates with our European and Japanese
counterparts on economic issues of mutual concern related to China,
such as investment security, debt sustainability and transparency, and
overseas development finance, as well as market barriers and China's
distortive economic and trade policies, which affect firms in all of
our countries.
______
Question Submitted by Hon. Tim Scott
Question. As Under Secretary for International Affairs at the
Treasury Department, you will be responsible for leading the U.S.
delegation in and determining policy for a number of multi-lateral
regulatory bodies like the Financial Stability Board (FSB) and the
International Association of Insurance Supervisors (IAIS). Sometimes
these multilateral bodies develop different standards or regulations
that might not be compatible with the United States or could have
negative repercussions for U.S. consumers and it will be your job to
assertively and effectively stand up for U.S. interests.
One current issue that could use your attention immediately is the
ongoing development of an insurance International Capital Standard
(ICS) by the IAIS. The current draft of the ICS closely resembles the
EU's approach to solvency regulation and is widely agreed to not be
equivalent with the U.S. system of insurance regulation. The ICS is
expected to be finalized in November at a meeting in Abu Dhabi and the
IAIS has not yet agreed to provide mutual recognition to the U.S.
system of insurance regulation as part of the completion of this
proposal. I, with 41 of my colleagues, recently sent a letter to
Federal Reserve Governor Randal Quarles expressing these concerns.
Will you commit that you will make achieving formal recognition of
the equivalency of the U.S. insurance system a top priority?
Answer. Treasury strongly supports the state-based system of
insurance regulation and is committed to continued engagement in the
international standard-
setting work at the IAIS to advance U.S. interests. Treasury is working
closely on this issue with the other members of ``Team USA''--the U.S.
States, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, and the
Federal Reserve Board. It is important to note that international
standards issued by the IAIS and other standard-setting bodies are non-
binding in the United States, and they will only become law in the
United States if implemented by the relevant State or Federal
authorities. Treasury will continue to coordinate with other members of
Team USA on the work at the IAIS, and we will continue to advocate,
both now and during the ensuing 5-year monitoring period, that the
ultimate outcome of the ICS accommodates the diverse approaches to
solvency regulation taken by various jurisdictions around the world,
including consideration of our State-based regulatory system.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Ron Wyden,
a U.S. Senator From Oregon
This morning the Finance Committee meets to discuss four important
nominations.
Mr. Brent McIntosh is nominated to be Treasury Under Secretary for
International Affairs. Mr. Brian Callanan is nominated to be Treasury
General Counsel. Mr. Brian McGuire is nominated to be a Deputy Under
Secretary of the Treasury for Legislative Affairs. And Mr. Travis
Greaves is nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court.
I'll start my remarks with the Treasury nominees. There's been a
pattern among some of the Trump nominees who've come before this
committee. In this room they swear up and down that they'll serve with
independence on behalf of all Americans. But after they're confirmed,
blind loyalty to Donald Trump takes precedence over following the law.
The nominees before the committee today are experienced--there's no
question about that. But with the Trump administration defying nearly
all congressional oversight, the right resumes are not enough. The
Finance Committee should have confidence that nominees would be able to
resist pressure to make politically expedient decisions that help
Donald Trump personally at the expense of typical American families.
In that vein, I want to turn to the Treasury Department's handling
of the Ways and Means Committee's request for Donald Trump's tax
returns under section 6103 of the tax code.
From where I sit, the Department has tossed aside the law and
decades of precedent to protect the President from congressional
scrutiny.
In May, I began investigating whether there was political
interference in the decision to withhold the tax returns. I asked the
Treasury a series of questions about the involvement of political
appointees, and the initial response was misleading and inaccurate. I
went back and demanded concrete answers.
After working with the Treasury to get them, the set of facts the
Department agreed upon shows the unprecedented nature of its actions.
This type of inquiry has never been political. Now the Trump
Treasury Department is politicizing it--top officials there are
trampling all over a process that's always been routine.
The Treasury Secretary has never before been involved in responding
to a request for tax returns under section 6103. Secretary Mnuchin is
the first.
Second, the Treasury Department has never before formally consulted
the Office of Legal Counsel on whether to comply with a specific 6103
request. OLC's opinion read like it was written by Rudy Giuliani to
justify the decision Treasury had already made. The analysis put
forward by the Justice Department has already been laughed out of court
by judges who have noted that the Congress has broad investigative
authority.
And third, the Treasury Department has never before formally
considered whether there is a legitimate legislative purpose behind a
6103 request--not even for Chairman Grassley's investigation into
ACORN.
Taken together, it's impossible to conclude that any of what the
Treasury did was on the level. That's why I have deep concerns about
the nominations of Brent McIntosh and Brian Callanan, who played
central roles in the Department's response. They were also right in the
middle of the Trump administration's decision to allow more foreign
money and dark money groups like the NRA to buy their desired outcomes
in American elections. That was a terrible decision, and the damage was
compounded when the Treasury Department then made a frivolous argument
to attempt to thwart congressional review of the rule.
I cannot ignore those facts. Mr. McIntosh and Mr. Callanan are
currently the top lawyers at the Treasury. It has appeared that
Treasury's leadership is more interested in protecting Donald Trump and
party interests than guaranteeing that the Department follows the law.
In my judgement, that conduct does not warrant promotions.
Switching gears for a moment to the U.S. Tax Court, Travis Greaves
has been nominated to serve a 15-year term and would help ensure
taxpayers get a fair shake in resolving tax disputes.
It's true that this nominee has 2 years of experience at the
Justice Department's Tax Division, as well as time spent in private
practice. However, Mr. Greaves's nomination to the committee was not
accompanied by a recommendation letter from the American Bar
Association's Tax Section. This is the first time in many years such a
letter was not included with the paperwork of a Tax Court judge. It
could be because Mr. Greaves' experience is far more limited than other
nominees to the Tax Court. So I look forward to hearing from him as to
why he feels he is qualified for this important role.
[all]