The Tax Lawyer
Note: The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the article as published in The Tax Lawyer. Author citations have been omitted for brevity. Tax Section members may read the article in its entirety in Adobe Acrobat format.
 
Article
 

NOTE

Why Common Law Calculus Failed: An Analysis of the Economic Substance Doctrine in Klamath Strategic Investment Fund v. United States

Brea E. L’Heureux

I. Introduction

In Klamath Strategic Investment Fund ex rel. St. Croix Ventures v. United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that a transaction lacking economic substance must be disregarded for tax purposes, regardless of the taxpayer’s stated motives. Notwithstanding the transaction’s literal compli­ance with the Code, the court affirmed the district court’s decision to disallow claimed losses generated by a tax shelter whose sole purpose was to avoid tax liability. Despite finding the transaction lacked economic substance, how­ever, the court did not penalize either taxpayer for underreporting.

Klamath is now one of many decisions that comprise an incongruent body of judicial law called the economic substance doctrine, and illustrates the logic of Congress’s recent decision to codify the law. “An injudicious tax offers a great temptation to smuggling,” and loopholes present in the tax system create incentives for taxpayers to engage in aggressive, often abu­sive, tax avoidance behavior. The economic substance doctrine evolved to address these gaps and deny tax benefits for transactions that lack economic legitimacy. However, the courts’ inconsistent application of determinative standards and disjointed application of related penalties degraded the doc­trine’s efficacy at deterring abusive tax avoidance behavior, prompting legis­lative intervention to codify the doctrine.

Part II of this Note describes the evolution of economic substance doc­trine—paying particular attention to its purpose and the bases for the recent codification of the law. Part III describes the transaction at issue in Klamath and outlines the Fifth Circuit’s economic substance analysis, using Klamath as context to illuminate the deficiencies of economic substance under the com­mon law. Part IV argues that Klamath demonstrates the need to recalibrate the cost-benefit calculus of engaging in abusive tax shelters and asserts that the codification of the economic substance doctrine is a step toward that end. Part V concludes that the codified framework provides clarity and uniformity needed to enhance the efficacy of the doctrine, and was a necessary step to combating abusive tax shelters.

Published by
Section of Taxation,
American Bar Association
in Collaboration with the
Georgetown University Law Center

If you are an ABA member, you can receive The Tax Lawyer and the Section NewsQuarterly, (both quarterly publications) when you join the Section of Taxation. Anyone can subscribe to The Tax Lawyer by contacting the ABA Service Center.