[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 74 (Tuesday, June 7, 2005)]
[Senate]
[Pages S6149-S6152]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 MORT CAPLIN ON THE NATION'S TAX SYSTEM

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, earlier this year, Mort Caplin, a 
founding partner of the law firm Caplin & Drysdale in Washington, DC, 
and the outstanding IRS Commissioner under President Kennedy, delivered 
the Erwin Griswold Lecture at the annual meeting of the American 
College of Tax Counsel, which was held in San Diego.
  In his eloquent and very readable address, Mr. Caplin summarizes the 
evolution of our modern tax system, the current challenges it faces, 
the recent efforts by Congress to achieve reform, the alarming drop in 
compliance and revenue collection, and the ethical responsibilities of 
the tax bar.
  Mr. Caplin's remarks are especially timely today as Congress 
struggles to deal with its own responsibility for the effectiveness, 
integrity and fairness of our tax laws. All of us in the Senate and 
House can benefit from his wise words, and I ask unanimous consent that 
his lecture be printed at this point in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              [From the Virginia Tax Review, Spring 2005]

     The Tax Lawyer's Role in the Way the American Tax System Works

                        (By Mortimer M. Caplin)

       It is a high privilege to be asked to deliver this Erwin N. 
     Griswold Lecture and a treat too to see so many old friends 
     and meet so many new ones. In honor of our namesake, I would 
     like to touch on four matters of relevance: (1) Dean 
     Griswold's impact on the tax law, (2) the role of the U.S. 
     Tax Court, (3) the role of the IRS, and (4) the tax lawyer's 
     role in the way the American tax system works.

[[Page S6150]]

       My first contact with the Dean was in my early days as a 
     young law professor at the University of Virginia School of 
     Law--struggling in the classroom using Griswold, Cases and 
     Materials on Federal Taxation. Not that the casebook was 
     entirely new to me; for, with the good help of the G.I. bill, 
     I'd become well-acquainted with it at N.Y.U. in my post-World 
     War II doctoral efforts. It's hard to believe, but the 
     Griswold casebook was the first ever devoted entirely to 
     federal income taxation; and it proved a godsend to me as I 
     segued from New York law practice to teaching at UVA in the 
     fall of 1950.
       Erwin Griswold and I met at law professor gatherings and 
     bar meetings, especially in the early 1950's at American Law 
     Institute sessions in Washington as members of ALI's Tax 
     Advisory Group. We both were hard at work on its 
     comprehensive tax report, which later became part of the 1954 
     Code. Never did I tell him though that, in using his 
     casebook, my custom was to try a personal touch by 
     distributing mimeograph materials that totally rearranged the 
     order of presentation and reading assignments. Nor did I ever 
     hint that, after a year or two, I switched entirely to his 
     major competitor, the more comprehensive Surrey and Warren. 
     He probably learned about it faster than I thought skimming 
     through his royalty reports--reports which he undoubtedly 
     scrutinized with great care.
       He had graduated from Harvard Law School in 1929, and his 
     first real contact with the tax law was during his five-year 
     stint as a fledgling attorney in the Office of the Solicitor 
     General of the United States. Federal tax rates and tax 
     receipts were at a low point then and handling tax cases was 
     not the most sought after assignment. By default, he soon 
     became the office's tax expert, arguing the bulk of its tax 
     cases both in the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Courts of 
     Appeals. I should mention that, just before leaving the 
     S.G.'s office, he was instrumental in the rule change that 
     allowed appeals in tax cases to be made under the general 
     title ``Commissioner of Internal Revenue,'' without the need 
     to specify the name of the incumbent. That's why you see 
     older tax cases bearing the names of particular 
     Commissioners--David Burnet or Guy T. Helvering, for 
     example--and, later, hardly any with names like Latham, 
     Caplin, Cohen, Thrower and the like. Let me mournfully add: 
     ``Sic transit gloria mundi''--so passes away the glory of 
     this world!
       Erwin Griswold left the S.G.'s office in 1934 to become a 
     Harvard Law School professor for 12 years, and then dean for 
     the next 21. He had a major influence on tens of thousands of 
     law students as well as lawyers throughout the world. As 
     years went by, he reminisced that he found ``less 
     exhilaration'' in teaching the federal tax course as ``the 
     tax law had become far more technical and complicated . . . 
     In the early days, the statute was less than one hundred 
     pages long and the income tax regulations . . . were in a 
     single, rather slight, volume.'' Oh, for the good old days!
       In the fall of 1967, he returned to the S.G.'s office, but 
     this time as the Solicitor General of the United States--a 
     position he held for six years. He'd been appointed by 
     President Lyndon B. Johnson during the last years of his 
     administration, and in 1969 was reappointed by President 
     Richard M. Nixon. President Nixon for his second term, 
     however, preferred as his S.G. a Yale law professor, Robert 
     H. Bork, someone more closely in tune with his philosophy. 
     Erwin Griswold's duties ended in June 1973, at the close of 
     the Supreme Court's term, well in time to avoid the heavy 
     lifting of Watergate and the ``Saturday Night Massacre.'' 
     Although, he later said that he would not have followed 
     Solicitor General Bork in carrying out the President's order 
     to fire Special Watergate Prosecutor Archibald Cox.
       Shortly after leaving office, he joined Jones, Day, Reavis 
     & Pogue as a partner and engaged in law practice and bar 
     activities for some 20 years, until his death in 1994 at the 
     age of 90. Erwin Griswold was honored many times over, not 
     only for his innumerable contributions to the law, but for 
     ``his moral courage and intellectual energy . . . meeting the 
     social responsibilities of the profession.''
       I always suspected that any special feeling the Dean may 
     have had for me had roots in my strong backing of his plea 
     for a single federal court of tax appeals--to resolve 
     conflicts and provide ``speedier final resolution of tax 
     issues.'' He observed, ``The Supreme Court hates tax cases, 
     and there is often no practical way to resolve such 
     conflicts''; and he anguished over the practicing bar's 
     opposition to his proposal, convinced that ``the real reason 
     is that tax lawyers find it advantageous to have uncertainty 
     and delay''--a preference for forum-shopping, if you will. 
     But in the end, in his 1992 biography, Ould Fields, New 
     Corne, he sounded a bit more hopeful: ``Eventually, something 
     along the lines proposed will have to come as it makes no 
     sense to have tax cases decided by thirteen different courts 
     of appeals, with no effective guidance on most questions from 
     the Supreme Court.''
       One Supreme Court Justice, who'd had hands-on experience in 
     tax administration, and well understood weaknesses in our 
     appellate review system, was former Justice Robert H. 
     Jackson. The Court's most informed member on taxation, he had 
     previously served successively as ``General Counsel'' of the 
     Bureau of Internal Revenue (succeeding E. Barrett Prettyman), 
     Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Tax Division, 
     Solicitor General, and then Attorney General of the United 
     States. In 1943, in his famous Dobson opinion, Justice 
     Jackson made a determined effort to strengthen the Tax 
     Court's status in the decision-making process so as to 
     minimize conflicts and attain a greater degree of uniformity. 
     To these ends, he laid down a stringent standard in appellate 
     review of Tax Court decisions:''
       [W]hen the [appellate] court cannot separate the elements 
     of a decision so as to identify a clear-cut mistake of law, 
     the decision of the Tax Court must stand . . . While its 
     decisions may not be binding precedents for courts dealing 
     with similar problems, uniform administration would be 
     promoted by conforming to them where possible.''
       The message was straightforward and seemingly clear; but it 
     didn't cover District Court decisions or those of the Court 
     of Federal Claims. Also, other problems were encountered by 
     judges and members of the bar, and dissatisfaction was high. 
     Ultimately this led to the 1948 statutory reversal of 
     Dobson by enactment of the review standard now in the 
     Internal Revenue Code, which requires U.S. Courts of 
     Appeals to review Tax Court decisions ``in the same manner 
     and to the same extent as decisions of the district courts 
     in civil actions tried without a jury.'' And that's where 
     the situation lies today--save for those still aspiring, 
     as Erwin Griswold did for the rest of his life, for 
     greater uniformity and earlier resolution of conflicts.
       Justice Jackson never did change his view about the 
     critical importance of the Tax Court. In his 1952 dissent in 
     Arrowsmith v. Commissioner, he underscored this in strikingly 
     poignant fashion, saying: ``In spite of the gelding of Dobson 
     v. Commissioner . . . by the recent revision of the Judicial 
     Code . . . I still think the Tax Court is a more competent 
     and steady influence toward a systematic body of tax law than 
     our sporadic omnipotence in a field beset with invisible 
     boomerangs.''
       Members of the tax bar readily endorse this strong vote of 
     confidence in the role of the Tax Court. As our nationwide 
     tax tribunal for over 80 years, it has served effectively and 
     with distinction as our most important court of original 
     jurisdiction in tax cases.
       Today's tax system has its genesis in World War II when 
     income taxes rapidly expanded from a tax touching the better 
     off only, to a mass tax reaching out to the workers of 
     America. Revenue collection was turned upside down with 
     Beardsley Ruml's ``pay-as-you-go,'' collection-at-the-source, 
     withholding and estimated quarterly payments, and floods of 
     paper filings. Commissioner Guy Helvering said it couldn't be 
     done. And, in fact, the old Bureau of Internal Revenue, with 
     its politically-appointed Collectors of Internal Revenue, was 
     not fully up to the task. Subcommittee hearings chaired by 
     Congressman Cecil R. King, D-California, revealed 
     incompetence, political influence and corruption; and 
     directly led to a total overhaul under President Harry 
     Truman's 1952 Presidential Reorganization Plan. New district 
     offices and intermediate regional offices, replaced the old 
     Collectors' offices; and, except for the Commissioner and 
     Chief Counsel, who still require presidential nomination and 
     Senate confirmation, the entire staff was put under civil 
     service. The last step a year later was the official name 
     change to ``Internal Revenue Service.''
       The new IRS made remarkable headway turning itself 
     completely around by the end of the 1950's; and it was not 
     long before it was recognized as one of government's leading 
     agencies. In the early 1960's, new heights were reached 
     through a fortunate confluence of events, strong White House 
     endorsement and unflagging budgetary support. President John 
     F. Kennedy had a special interest in tax law and tax 
     administration and almost immediately called on Congress for 
     anti-abuse tax legislation and strengthening of tax law 
     enforcement, including Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy's 
     drive against organized crime. Of key importance was the 
     final congressional go-ahead for installing a nationwide 
     automatic data processing system (ADP), backed by approval of 
     individual account numbers and a master file of taxpayers 
     housed in a central national computer center. IRS had entered 
     the modern age. But it is this same ADP design, now badly 
     out-of-date, which is still in use, albeit patched with 
     additions and alterations. And it is the dire need to 
     modernize this 44-year old system which is IRS' chief 
     challenge today.
       Starting in the 1970's, IRS began to encounter its present 
     serious difficulties. A series of complex legislative 
     changes, tightened budgets, an exploding workload, and 
     expensive failures to complete its ``tax systems 
     modernization'' (TSM) project-- all contributed to weakened 
     performance and heightened congressional oversight. In 1995 
     and 1996, Congress created the National Commission 
     on Restructuring the Internal Revenue Service ``to review 
     the present practices of the IRS, and recommend how to 
     modernize and improve the efficiency and productivity of 
     the IRS while improving taxpayer services.'' A year later, 
     the Commission issued its report, ``A Vision for a New 
     IRS,'' which led to the enactment of the Internal Revenue 
     Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98).
       The report centered chiefly on governance and managerial 
     type changes, including IRS modernization, a publicly-
     controlled Oversight Board, a business-type Commissioner of 
     Internal Revenue, electronic filing and a paperless tax 
     system, taxpayer rights, and finally--and of primary 
     importance--changing

[[Page S6151]]

     IRS' culture and mission so as to place emphasis on enhanced 
     ``customer service'' and functioning like ``a first rate 
     financial institution.'' Congress was asked to do its part 
     too: simplified tax legislation; complexity analyses reports; 
     multiyear budgeting; joint hearings and coordinated reports 
     of the different oversight committees. To the more 
     sophisticated, the suggestions to Congress appeared more 
     aspirational than realistic.
       The House largely followed the Commission's recommendations 
     (H.R. 2676). But the legislation found itself pending at a 
     tumultuous time, when the air was filled with words of U.S. 
     Senators--if you can believe it--like: ``end the IRS as we 
     know it,'' ``tear the IRS out by the roots,'' ``drive a stake 
     in the heart of the corrupt culture at the IRS,'' and ``stop 
     a war on taxpayers.'' At this point, Senator William V. Roth, 
     Jr., R-Delaware, Senate Finance Committee Chairman, took over 
     and ran a series of dramatic, highly televised hearings, 
     carefully prepared by his staff, and featuring a handful of 
     allegedly abused taxpayers and IRS employees who gave 
     testimony that shocked the nation. Never at the time did the 
     IRS have the opportunity to tell its side of the story; nor 
     was the testimony tested for accuracy or placed in proper 
     context. Later, however, after enactment of RRA 98, court 
     proceedings and various government reports by the GAO and 
     Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) 
     clearly established that much of the testimony was not only 
     misleading but false; IRS may have made mistakes, but they 
     were not malicious or systemic. Numerous corrective news 
     stories began to appear with sharp headlines like the 
     following: ``IRS Abuse Charges Discredited''; ``Highly 
     Publicized Horror Story That Led to Curbs on IRS Quietly 
     Unravels''; ``IRS Watchdog Finds Complaints Unfounded''; 
     ``Court is Asked to Block False Complaints against IRS''; 
     ``Secret GAO Report is Latest to Discredit Roth's IRS 
     Hearings.'' But publication came too late; the damage was 
     already done.
       Congress, the public and ultimately the Clinton 
     administration had all been outraged by the Senate testimony 
     and, almost overnight, sweeping support was given to Senator 
     Roth's proposed highly stringent treatment of the IRS. His 
     Senate version added some 100 new provisions to the House 
     bill. Some are praiseworthy and reasonably protective of 
     taxpayer rights, but others step over the line, unduly 
     micromanaging IRS daily operations and laying the groundwork 
     for serious delaying tactics by taxpayers and damage to the 
     administrative process. In the end, the legislation was 
     adopted by an overwhelming vote. One of the most criticized 
     provisions is the ``10 Deadly Sins'' sanction in section 1203 
     of RRA 98. This peremptory discharge procedure, which directs 
     the Commissioner to terminate an employee for any one of 
     certain specified violations, is deeply disturbing to IRS 
     personnel. Some hesitate to enforce the tax law because of 
     possible unfair exposure to complaints by disgruntled 
     taxpayers. Both Commissioner Mark W. Everson and former 
     Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti have noted this erratic 
     impact and have requested modification. In my mind, there is 
     little doubt that section 1203 should be totally repealed.
       Commissioner Rossotti very ably captained the transition to 
     the new culture. But with Congress' continuing emphasis on 
     the ``customer service'' aspect of tax administration, it was 
     not until his last years that the word ``enforcement'' began 
     to trickle out, along with warnings of the ``continuing 
     deterioration'' and ``dangerous downtrend in the tax 
     system.'' This shift in emphasis was quickly hastened by new 
     Commissioner Mark Everson, who early announced: ``At the 
     IRS our working equation is service plus enforcement 
     equals compliance.'' (This to me is the basic ``S-E-C of 
     taxation.'') He underscores repeatedly the significant 
     ``diminution of resources''; the continuing fall in 
     audits, collection, notices to non-filers; the 36 percent 
     drop in enforcement personnel since 1996; and, since 1998, 
     the audit rate drop of 57 percent!
       Perhaps of even greater importance is the negative impact 
     this weakened enforcement has had on compliance and self-
     assessment. Commissioner Everson often quotes President 
     Kennedy's admonition: ``Large continued avoidance of tax on 
     the part of some has a steadily demoralizing effect on the 
     compliance of others.'' Indeed, the annual tax gap continues 
     to grow: Last reported as a $311 billion tax loss each year--
     from underreporting, nonpayment and non-filing--new findings 
     of a major increase are anticipated in the IRS study now 
     underway
       With repeated annual deficits and a burgeoning national 
     debt, the Commissioner recently confessed: ``The IRS, frankly 
     speaking, needs to bring in more money to the Treasury.'' The 
     White House had confirmed this by supporting a 2005 budget 
     increase and allocating to enforcement alone an increase of 
     11 percent. But this was not to be. For in the cut-back in 
     the increase, House majority leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, 
     commented rather imprudently: ``I don't shed any tears for 
     the IRS. Our priority as far as the IRS is concerned is to 
     put them out of business.'' So much for the looming crisis in 
     meeting the revenue needs of our democracy!
       IRS' final 2005 appropriation reflected hardly a one 
     percent increase--an overall grant of $10.3 billion, almost 
     $400 million below the President's request. This tight 
     squeeze tells clearly why IRS went along with outsourcing to 
     private debt-collection agencies the collection of certain 
     delinquent tax accounts. The statutory authorization to pay 
     outsiders up to 25 percent of tax debts collected is 
     technically ``off-book''; and through this backdoor 
     financing, IRS' appropriations takes no direct hit.
       This then is the very serious state of affairs confronting 
     those directly concerned with the fair and balanced 
     administration of our tax law.
       The proper functioning of our tax system is largely 
     dependent upon the quality and responsible involvement of 
     well-trained tax practitioners, primarily tax lawyers and tax 
     accountants. Well over half the public seeks their help for 
     tax advice and return preparation--inquiring, time and again, 
     about the ``rules of the road,'' what's right and what's 
     wrong, what's lawful and what's not. The integrity and 
     standards of these tax professionals serve as the nation's 
     guideposts, with direct impact on taxpayer compliance and the 
     self-assessment concept itself. The significance of their 
     good faith practices cannot be overstated.
       Recent congressional and IRS investigations, however, have 
     identified an alarming spread of extremely questionable 
     practices, some approaching outright fraud, by a number of 
     previously well-regarded tax practitioners. The Senate 
     Finance Committee has zeroed in directly on practitioners as 
     a whole, emphasizing the ``important role tax advisors play 
     in our tax system.'' Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, 
     caustically observed: ``At the heart of every abusive tax 
     shelter is a tax lawyer or accountant.'' In full agreement, 
     Senator Max Baucus, D-Montana, the committee's ranking 
     minority member, added: ``Let's stop these unsavory practices 
     in their tracks by restoring integrity and professionalism in 
     the practitioner community.'' In their follow-up letter to 
     the Treasury Secretary John N. Snow, they called for 
     reinvigoration of IRS' Office of Professional Responsibility 
     (OPR), for its proper funding, and for extension of the 
     authority of its new head, Cono Namorato. Much has 
     happened since, legislatively and administratively.
       Taking the lead, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 
     greatly enhances OPR's effectiveness through a series of new 
     provisions that expand Circular 230's reach: (1) confirming 
     authority to impose standards on tax-shelter opinion writers, 
     (2) clarifying authority to ``censure'' practitioners, as 
     well as to suspend or disbar them, (3) granting authority, 
     for the first time, to impose monetary penalties on 
     individual practitioners, as well as on employers or entities 
     for which they act, and (4) granting injunction authority, 
     for the first time, to prevent recurrence of Circular 230 
     violations.
       In turn, publication of Treasury's long-awaited Circular 
     230 amendments on tax-shelter opinion writing puts OPR's 
     momentum in high gear. The official release advises that 
     these ``final regulations provide best practices for all tax 
     advisors, mandatory requirements for written advice that 
     presents a greater potential for concern, and minimum 
     standards for other advice.'' No doubt is left, however, that 
     the amendments' underlying intent is to ``Promote Ethical 
     Practice,'' ``improve ethical standards,'' and ``restore and 
     maintain public confidence in tax professionals.'' 
     Highlighted too is the caution that ``one of the IRS' top 
     four enforcement goals'' is ``[e]nsuring that attorneys, 
     accountants and other tax practitioners adhere to 
     professional standards and follow the law.''
       This is a harsh estimate of tax practitioners in general. 
     As members of the profession of tax lawyers, it is difficult 
     to ignore our collective responsibility to respond. What do 
     we do about it? Certainly the tax bar has not been asleep. 
     Both the ABA Tax Section and the AICPA separately have been 
     working on standards of practice for over 40 years; and each 
     has published a series of guiding principles which continue 
     as works in progress. The issue remains, however, whether the 
     tax bar has probed deeply enough.
       Have we been willing to grapple with more subtle, more 
     difficult issues? Have we articulated what we regard as 
     ``best practices'' for tax lawyers, keeping in mind that 
     Circular 230 applies to a broad range of ``practitioners''? 
     Tax lawyers are clearly quite distinguishable from other 
     ``practitioners'' and, indeed, from lawyers in general. And 
     it seems fair to ask: Which practices are acceptable to the 
     tax bar, and which are not? At what point does the tax bar 
     regard tax advice or tax practice as crossing the line? As 
     ``too aggressive''? As ``things that are not done''?
       These questions, of course, transcend the current concern 
     with tax shelters only. It may not be long, in my view, 
     before we will be asked to revisit a broader question: 
     ``Whether, in a system that requires each taxpayer to self-
     assess the taxes that are legally due, a tax lawyer can 
     properly advise a client that he or she may take an 
     undisclosed tax return position absent the lawyer's good 
     faith belief that the position is `more likely than not' 
     correct?'' In considering the issue some 20 years ago, ABA 
     Formal Opinion 85-352 crafted as a more flexible answer the 
     ``realistic possibility of success'' test, which later became 
     a touchstone used by Congress and the Treasury in assessing 
     certain penalties. In light of unacceptable developments 
     since then, it would seem timely for the entire subject 
     matter to undergo a thorough review.
       In his speech on The Public Influence of the Bar, Supreme 
     Court Chief Justice Harlan F. Stone addressed the same theme 
     of lawyers' ethics in relation to the great Wall

[[Page S6152]]

     Street stock market crash. Critical of ``clever legal 
     devices,'' and critical of lawyers having done ``relatively 
     so little to remedy the evils of the investment market,'' he 
     observed that ``whatever standards of conduct in the 
     performance of its function the Bar consciously adopts must 
     at once be reflected in the character of the world of 
     business and finance.'' In his view, ``the possibilities of 
     its influence are almost beyond calculation''; and he went on 
     to advise, ``It is needful that we look beyond the club of 
     the policeman as a civilizing agency to the sanctions of 
     professional standards which condemn the doing of what the 
     law has not yet forbidden.''
       The point is: Though we are a long-recognized profession, 
     allowed the privilege of autonomy and essentially self-
     regulation, no insurmountable barriers exist to prevent 
     encroachment on this privilege, or even its end, if our 
     practices or standards are regarded as inadequate or 
     unrealistic. Today, we already see a gradual erosion flowing 
     from a series of new governmental rules--by Congress, for 
     example through the Internal Revenue Code or legislation like 
     Sarbanes-Oxley, or by the SEC or Public Company Accounting 
     Oversight Board (``Peekaboo''), or by Treasury through 
     Circular 230 or other regulations.
       Our profession of tax lawyers must take the initiative and 
     become more intently involved--more proactive and not simply 
     defensive. Problems need be identified and solutions 
     developed by ourselves, and where necessary recommended for 
     implementation by the bar in general or by appropriate 
     governmental bodies. We cannot wait for others to compel 
     answers. Nor can we move at the pace of the ALI project that 
     required 13 years to complete a two-volume Restatement of the 
     Law Governing Lawyers. Ours would naturally be more immediate 
     in time and focus, and might well look to the leadership of 
     the ABA Section on Taxation, this organization, the American 
     College of Tax Counsel, or some other concerned and qualified 
     group.
       As tax lawyers, we face many different responsibilities 
     daily--to our clients, to the profession, to the public, to 
     ourselves. How we maintain our own self-respect as lawyers; 
     how we desire to be viewed by others; and how we use our 
     special skills to improve the nation's revenue raising 
     system--are all questions crossing our minds every day, some 
     at times in conflict and in need of balancing as we confront 
     different tasks. In this regard, Dean Griswold counseled us 
     to preserve our ``independence of view''--separating our 
     representation of clients from our role as public citizens 
     seeking to improve the functioning of government.
       The one exemplar he acclaimed is Randolph E. Paul, 
     Treasury's General Counsel and tax policy leader during World 
     War II, whom the Dean refers to as ``one of the early giants 
     in the tax field.'' Randolph, with whom I practiced during my 
     beginning days as a lawyer, asserted this individual 
     independence throughout his entire career, while he developed 
     a remarkable tax practice. In the closing lines of his 
     classic Taxation in the United States, he makes these seminal 
     observations on ``the responsibilities of tax experts'':
       ``The most I can say is that I do not think surrender needs 
     to be unconditional . . . I know tax advisers who accomplish 
     the double job of ably representing their clients and 
     faithfully working for the tax system taxpayers deserve . . . 
     At another level I venture the opinion that they lead a more 
     comfortable life than do many of their colleagues. Of one 
     thing I am very sure--that both taxpayers and the government 
     need many more of these independent advisers.''
       Tonight this room is filled with many of these independent, 
     responsible advisers--some surely to become the giants we 
     will salute in the future. I am certain that together we will 
     overcome our present challenge ``to restore and maintain 
     public confidence in tax professionals.'' At the same time, I 
     have no doubt too that we will not fail in our ongoing 
     commitment to better the way in which our nation's needs for 
     revenue are fulfilled, fairly and honorably.

                          ____________________