Business and Administrative Law

Allen Buckley performs ordinary business services that are related to the employee benefits, tax and estate planning work he performs.  Thus, often, LLCs are formed.  Mr. Buckley forms the entity and creates the operating agreement.  If the client wants an EIN, Mr. Buckley will procure the EIN from the IRS.   Often, clients wish to establish an LLC in connection with a self-directed IRA in order to reduce recurring fees.  Consultation regarding choice of entity is provided.

Business Law.  Business services also include general contract review and drafting.   The terms of stock purchase and sale deals are negotiated.   However, for more complex deals such as mergers and asset acquisitions (and ESOP deals), either co-counsel is sought or a referral to another attorney is made.  With respect to estate planning, documents are created to implement the plan.

Administrative Law and User Fees.  Administrative law often involves challenging action taken by an administrative agency, such as the U.S. Treasury Department.  Mr. Buckley is co-counsel in a case (Steele v. U.S.) that challenges the IRS’s ability to charge annual user fees of tax return preparers to prepare income tax returns.  The case is described in this article:  FORBES Article – IRS Hit With Class Action Suit Over Tax Preparer User Fees  The following article describes past cases in which Mr. Buckley was involved, relating to the subject matter.  Article Tax Notes ABuckley Oct 15 2012    (He also filed a personal action with respect to the matter.) Mr.Buckley believes what has happened with respect to PTIN fees amounts to abuse of power by the Executive Branch of the federal government.  Namely, without statutory authority to permit it to do so, the IRS proposed and then implemented its own system of regulating the tax return industry.  It did so even though Congress had rejected the IRS’s system and similar systems several times.  To charge fees, the IRS attempted to change the requirement that return preparers acquire a PTIN and place it on prepared tax returns into a license so that it could extract annual user (licensing) fees.  The PTIN user fee is, in Mr. Buckley’s opinion, a ‘tip of the iceberg’ case.  Several years ago, the GAO said that agencies need to examine expansion of user fees as part of the means by which the federal government can meet the challenges of the 21st century.  Since then, agencies have started charging fees for regulatory actions that are unwanted by those being regulated.  Charging user fees is fine where lawful.  (According to the U.S. Supreme Court, the person being charged must receive a “special benefit” in order to be charged.) Mr. Buckley firmly believes that it is unlawful for fees to be charged for a PTIN.  Congress and the Executive Branch need to do their jobs and solve the nation’s financial problems.  Regardless of whether they do or not, justice needs to remain pure.  On June 1, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in favor of the return preparers. The opinion follows. Memorandum on Summary Judgement June 1 2017 The Government appealed. On March 1, 2019, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed and remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether fees are excessive. The opinion follows.Court of Appeals Opinion Mar 1 2019 On May 24, 2019, I filed a certiorari petition with the U.S. Supreme Court. Without appendices, it is here: Montrois SCOTUS Petition May 24 2019.  The petition was denied. The case now is back at the U.S. district court, with the task of figuring out what fees are permissible to issue PTINs and maintain the PTIN database. It likely will not settle. On January 24, 2023, the U.S. district court issued an order and related memo, remanding the case back to the IRS to calculated permissible fees. In April of 2023, Mr. Buckley filed a new action on behalf of Adam Steele, challenging PTIN renewals and, in the alternative, excessive questioning on Form W-12. In May of 2023, Krystal Comer was added as a plaintiff. The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the case in August of 2023.