Tax Policy

The firm does not practice tax law in the commonly understood sense, that is, we do not assist individuals or corporations in connection with income, sales or excise taxes.  However, the firm does have a long-standing interest in tax policy issues arising from those provisions of the federal constitution regulating our system of federalism — the treaty power, the Commerce Clause, and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

Accordingly, the firm has an active practice in issues of State taxation under the federal constitution.  That practice has included matters relating to the negotiation and ratification of a tax treaty between the United States and a foreign nation as well as briefing and counseling with respect to litigation before the U.S. Supreme Court, including:

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, No. 04-1704 (2006)(Of counsel to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, amicus)

Barclays Bank, PLC v. Franchise Tax Board & Colgate-Palmolive Co. v. Franchise Tax Board, 512 U.S. 298 (1994) (We filed two amici briefs, one on behalf of Congressmen Don Edwards, et al. and one of behalf of California Tax Reform Association, et al. in support of California).

Kraft v. Iowa, 505 U.S. 71 (1993).  We filed an amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center in support of Iowa's tax.

Quill Corp. v. State of North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298 (1993).  We were of counsel to the Multistate Tax Commission on a brief in support of the State's right to require mail order marketers to collect the State's use tax.

Franchise Tax Board v. Alcan Aluminium Ltd., 493 U.S. 331 (1990). We filed an amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center supporting California's contention that a foreign corporation does not have standing to attack a State tax in federal court.  The Court unanimously upheld the State position.

Amerada Hess Corp. v. Director, Division of Taxation, 490 U.S. 66 (1989). We assisted the New Jersey Attorney General in briefing and arguing the State's right to use a tax scheme different from the federal government's. A unanimous Court accepted the State's position.

Goldberg v. Sweet, 488 U.S. 252 (1989). Our amicus brief for the State and Local Legal Center in support of the constitutionality of the Illinois tax on interstate telephone calls, was cited by the Court in upholding the tax.

In addition to the U.S. Supreme Court tax litigation listed above, we advised the State of Hawaii on how to minimize its liability when it had to refund taxes that were ruled unconstitutional in Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U.S. 263 (1984) and in the Keystone insurance cases. We advised the State of West Virginia on the same issue when one its taxes was ruled unconstitutional in Armco v. Hardesty, 467 U.S. 638 (1984).  Martin Lobel has also written the leading article in the area entitled "Refunding Unconstitutional State Taxes," July 29, 1991 Tax Notes at 581.

Mr. Lobel has served since 1972 as the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Tax Analysts which publishes Tax Notes and other analytical and informational magazines and services on tax policy and administration.