About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


2015 Pepp. L. Rev. Ann. 1 (2015)

handle is hein.journals/pnelwrwan2015 and id is 1 raw text is: Vol. 2015 Foreword-King v. Burwell Symposium PEPPERDINE LAW REVIEW Foreword-King v. Burwell Symposium: Comments on the Commentaries (and on Some Elephants in the Room) David Gamage When the Editors of the Pepperdine Law Review asked me to pen a response commentary to the essays submitted for their symposium on the King v. Burwell case, I agreed only with some reluctance. As some readers of this symposium volume may already be aware, I took an academic leave during the time period extending from the summer of 2010 to the summer of 2012 to accept a position at the Treasury Department's Office of Tax Policy. The portfolio of my Treasury position included the Regulations for Internal Revenue Code § 36B (Section 36B)-the Regulations that were being challenged in the King v. Burwell' case. I must thus clarify at the outset that nothing I write in this response commentary should be taken as indicative of the views of the Treasury Department, the Obama Administration, or anyone other than myself. The thrust of my response commentary will be to praise the submitted essays for their excellence and insightfulness, but to suggest that the submitted essays nonetheless might benefit from focusing more on the role of the political mobilization that resulted in the King v. Burwell dispute. The essays submitted for this symposium volume largely concentrate on the implications of the King v. Burwell decision for the future of Chevron deference, both in tax and non-tax contexts. Accordingly, Professor Johnson's essay argues that Chevron deference is now receding in tax' and that, more generally, we are now seeing the Chevron doctrine's fall in tax and elsewhere; a fall in substantive significance, although perhaps not frequency of citation.3 Professor Johnson argues persuasively, yet some of the other submitted essays express greater uncertainty about the implications of the King v. Burwell decision for the future of Chevron deference. For instance, 1. 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015). 2. Steve R. Johnson, The Rise and Fall of Chevron in Tax: From the Early Days to King and Beyond, 2015 PEPP. L. REV. 19 (2015). 3. Id. at 26. 1