0% found this document useful (0 votes)

53 views65 pages

Hearing On Issues Relating To The Patenting of Tax Advice

The hearing discusses issues related to patents being issued for tax reduction strategies, particularly in the area of estate and gift taxation. Witnesses from the Patent and Trademark Office, Internal Revenue Service, law schools and law firms will provide their views on whether tax advice should be patentable.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

53 views65 pages

Hearing On Issues Relating To The Patenting of Tax Advice

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as PDF or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 65

HEARING ON ISSUES RELATING TO

THE PATENTING OF TAX ADVICE

HEARING
BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION

JULY 13, 2006

Serial No. 10977

Printed for the use of the Committee on Ways and Means

(
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

30450

2006

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 5121800; DC area (202) 5121800
Fax: (202) 5122250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 204020001

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00001

Fmt 5011

Sfmt 5011

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS

BILL THOMAS, California, Chairman
E. CLAY SHAW, JR., Florida
CHARLES B. RANGEL, New York
NANCY L. JOHNSON, Connecticut
FORTNEY PETE STARK, California
WALLY HERGER, California
SANDER M. LEVIN, Michigan
JIM MCCRERY, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
DAVE CAMP, Michigan
JIM MCDERMOTT, Washington
JIM RAMSTAD, Minnesota
JOHN LEWIS, Georgia
JIM NUSSLE, Iowa
RICHARD E. NEAL, Massachusetts
SAM JOHNSON, Texas
MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York
PHIL ENGLISH, Pennsylvania
JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee
J.D. HAYWORTH, Arizona
XAVIER BECERRA, California
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
KENNY C. HULSHOF, Missouri
EARL POMEROY, North Dakota
RON LEWIS, Kentucky
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
MARK FOLEY, Florida
MIKE THOMPSON, California
KEVIN BRADY, Texas
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
RAHM EMANUEL, Illinois
PAUL RYAN, Wisconsin
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana
DEVIN NUNES, California
ALLISON H. GILES, Chief of Staff
JANICE MAYS, Minority Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES

DAVE CAMP, Michigan, Chairman
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MARK FOLEY, Florida
THOMAS M. REYNOLDS, New York
ERIC CANTOR, Virginia
JOHN LINDER, Georgia
MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania
CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

MICHAEL R. MCNULTY, New York

LLOYD DOGGETT, Texas
STEPHANIE TUBBS JONES, Ohio
MIKE THOMPSON, California
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Pursuant to clause 2(e)(4) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House, public hearing records
of the Committee on Ways and Means are also published in electronic form. The printed
hearing record remains the official version. Because electronic submissions are used to
prepare both printed and electronic versions of the hearing record, the process of converting
between various electronic formats may introduce unintentional errors or omissions. Such occurrences are inherent in the current publication process and should diminish as the process
is further refined.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00002

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

CONTENTS
Page

Advisory of June 22, 2006 announcing the hearing ..............................................

WITNESSES
James Toupin, General Counsel, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office .................
The Honorable Mark Everson, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service ..........
Richard S. Gruner, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School, Costa Mesa,
California ..............................................................................................................
Ellen Aprill, Associate Dean of Academic Programs, Professor of Law, and
John E. Anderson, Chair in Tax Law, Loyola Law School, Los Angeles,
California ..............................................................................................................
Dennis I. Belcher, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond, Virginia ...............

5
11

24
36
42

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Gavalis, Albert, Graf Repetti & Co., Llp, New York, NY, statement and
attachment ............................................................................................................
Schreiner, Stephen, Hunton & Williams Llp, statement .....................................

iii

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00003

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

59
59

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00004

Fmt 0486

Sfmt 0486

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

HEARING ON ISSUES RELATING TO

THE PATENTING OF TAX ADVICE
THURSDAY, JULY 13, 2006

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS,
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in
room B318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Dave Camp
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
[The advisory announcing the hearing follows:]

(1)

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00005

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6633

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

ADVISORY
FROM THE COMMITTEE ON WAYS AND MEANS
SUBCOMMITTEE ON SELECT REVENUE MEASURES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
June 27, 2006
SRM9

CONTACT: (202) 2265911

Camp Announces Hearing on

Issues Relating to the Patenting of Tax Advice
Congressman Dave Camp (RMI), Chairman, Subcommittee on Select Revenue
Measures of the Committee on Ways and Means, today announced that the Subcommittee will hold a hearing on issues relating to the patenting of tax advice. The
hearing will take place on Thursday, July 13, 2006, in B318 Rayburn House
Office Building, beginning at 10:30 a.m.
In view of the limited time available to hear witnesses, oral testimony at this
hearing will be from invited witnesses only. However, any individual or organization
not scheduled for an oral appearance may submit a written statement for consideration by the Subcommittee and for inclusion in the printed record of the hearing.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, patents for business methods have been issued by the Patent
and Trademark Office. A number of patents have been issued for tax reduction
strategies, particularly in the area of estate and gift taxation.
In announcing the hearing, Chairman Camp stated, This hearing is an opportunity to explore a relatively recent phenomenon. At first glance, it seems odd that
anyone should be permitted to patent means of complying with federal law. While
intellectual property experts rightly note that patents can help promote the development of new technologies and ideas, tax practitioners have expressed concerns about
giving one person the ability to charge others for using relatively common structures. We also need to get a sense of whether patents may contribute to tax avoidance schemes which make the IRSs job of blocking tax shelters more difficult in the
long run.
There are no preconceived goals here, Camp noted. We want to explore this development and thats why were inviting the IRS, the Patent and Trademark Office,
academicians and practitioners to give us their views of the practice.
FOCUS OF THE HEARING:
To explore issues relating to the issuing of patents for tax reduction strategies,
particularly in the area of estate and gift taxation.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

DETAILS FOR SUBMISSION OF WRITTEN COMMENTS:

Please Note: Any person(s) and/or organization(s) wishing to submit for the hearing record must follow the appropriate link on the hearing page of the Committee
website and complete the informational forms. From the Committee homepage,
http://waysandmeans.house.gov, select 109th Congress from the menu entitled,
Hearing Archives (http://waysandmeans.house.gov/Hearings.asp?congress=17). Select the hearing for which you would like to submit, and click on the link entitled,
Click here to provide a submission for the record. Once you have followed the online instructions, completing all informational forms and clicking submit on the
final page, an email will be sent to the address which you supply confirming your

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00006

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

3
interest in providing a submission for the record. You MUST REPLY to the email
and ATTACH your submission as a Word or WordPerfect document, in compliance
with the formatting requirements listed below, by close of business Thursday, July
27, 2006. Finally, please note that due to the change in House mail policy, the U.S.
Capitol Police will refuse sealed-package deliveries to all House Office Buildings.
For questions, or if you encounter technical problems, please call (202) 2251721.
FORMATTING REQUIREMENTS:
The Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official hearing record. As always, submissions will be included in the record according to the discretion of the Committee.
The Committee will not alter the content of your submission, but we reserve the right to format
it according to our guidelines. Any submission provided to the Committee by a witness, any supplementary materials submitted for the printed record, and any written comments in response
to a request for written comments must conform to the guidelines listed below. Any submission
or supplementary item not in compliance with these guidelines will not be printed, but will be
maintained in the Committee files for review and use by the Committee.
1. All submissions and supplementary materials must be provided in Word or WordPerfect
format and MUST NOT exceed a total of 10 pages, including attachments. Witnesses and submitters are advised that the Committee relies on electronic submissions for printing the official
hearing record.
2. Copies of whole documents submitted as exhibit material will not be accepted for printing.
Instead, exhibit material should be referenced and quoted or paraphrased. All exhibit material
not meeting these specifications will be maintained in the Committee files for review and use
by the Committee.
3. All submissions must include a list of all clients, persons, and/or organizations on whose
behalf the witness appears. A supplemental sheet must accompany each submission listing the
name, company, address, telephone and fax numbers of each witness.

Note: All Committee advisories and news releases are available on the World
Wide Web at http://waysandmeans.house.gov.
The Committee seeks to make its facilities accessible to persons with disabilities.
If you are in need of special accommodations, please call 2022251721 or 202226
3411 TTD/TTY in advance of the event (four business days notice is requested).
Questions with regard to special accommodation needs in general (including availability of Committee materials in alternative formats) may be directed to the Committee as noted above.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Chairman CAMP. Good morning, the Committee on Ways and

Means on Select Revenue will come to order. Today, we will explore
a relatively recent phenomenon, patenting tax methods and strategies. To date, only a few patents have been issued for business
methods involving the Tax Code. However, we are examining what
the practice might mean to taxpayers and the legislative process if
it expands. This hearing is about the overlap of two important Federal policies: patents and general tax compliance. With patents, the
government seeks to promote public access to innovative products
and developments by providing inventors with the ability to control
the use of an invention for a period of years. Tax legislation is generally written with the idea that the rules, and particularly those
rules that provide benefits, ought to be equally available to every
eligible taxpayer.
Our panelists have been invited to provide us with an overview
of how key government agencies are dealing with this phenomenon
and perspectives on potential pluses and minuses such patents may
have. There are two major issues we will explore with them. First,
does the existence of a patent appear to legitimize an otherwise inappropriate tax arrangement and thereby contribute to tax compliance problems or, worse, create a misunderstanding of our tax

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00007

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

laws. Second, and perhaps more important over the long term, is
the effect of patents on taxpayers seeking to comply with enacted
laws intended to benefit broad groups.
Our first panel includes James Toupin, general counsel of the
Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and an individual well
known to many of us, Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Commissioner Mark Everson. Their agencies have been working together
on matters related to tax patents, including increasing scrutiny and
awareness.
The second panel includes Members of the academic community,
Professor Richard Gruner, who teaches intellectual property and
Whittier Law School; and Professor Ellen Aprill, who teaches tax
law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles. Our third witness, Dennis Belcher, is a partner at the McGuireWoods Law Firm, who
practices estate and trust administration and estate planning, as
well as serving as the secretary of the American College of Trust
and Estate Counsel. He will offer a perspective from the practitioners point of view. The panel will give Members an opportunity
to evaluate the pros and cons of patenting tax compliance concepts
and views on what might be done to expand the transparency of
the patent process to reduce risks to taxpayers.
I would now yield to the Ranking Member, Congresswoman
Stephanie Tubbs Jones, for any remarks she would choose to make.
Ms. TUBBS JONES. Any day I could be Ranking Member or a
Chair, I cant wait, okay. Hi, everybody.
Chairman CAMP. Lets hope it is a little bit of a wait.
Ms. TUBBS JONES. Okay, all right. No offense, Dave. In 1998,
the U.S. Court of Appeals decision held that tax strategies and financial products could be protected as patentable business methods. This has led to the issuance of about 40 tax patents by the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and 60 more are pending. I
could go on and read this but everybody knows why we are here.
I will submit this written opening statement for the record. I am
pleased to have the opportunity to get engaged in this discussion.
When I realized this is what we were going to do, I called a couple
of my friends who do patent work and then some who did tax work.
They said, We are not paying any attention to that. I said, Wait
a minute, it is important. So, I sent them the information, I am
hoping to get some outside response to this whole issue.
Gentlemen, I am glad to have you both here. If you see me slip
out, it is only for a moment. All of you recognize that the Voting
Rights amendment Act (P.L. 109246) is being debated this morning, and I have got to go put my two cents in. Once I do that, I
will go and come back. I am really interested, and I thank the
Chairman for calling this hearing. I think it is going to be very interesting.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tubbs Jones follows:]
In 1998, a U.S. Court of Appeals decision held that tax strategies and financial
products could be protected as patentable business methods. This has led to the
issuance of about forty tax advice patents by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
and sixty more are pending. These patents involve, for example, techniques for converting a regular IRA to a Roth IRA, creating tax-deferred real estate exchanges,
enhancing donations of artwork through a tax-exempt organization, performing tax
computations and tax-advantaged transactional structures, and converting future

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00008

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

5
Social Security payments into current benefits. The most controversial patent to the
tax practitioner community is called SOGRAT.
It involves techniques for transferring appreciated assets to family Members while
incurring minimal estate and gift taxes. Such a patented estate tax strategy, and
others that are not patented but are still common, begs the question of whether we
need to eliminate or drastically reduce the estate tax. That said, I think that the
following basic issues should be addressed at this hearing: At the outset, should tax
advice be eligible for a patentas an invention based on interpretation of the Tax
Code and IRS regulations? Should tax patent holders be able to control, and potentially profit from, application of the tax laws as enacted by Congress? What role
does the IRS have to ensure that aggressive tax schemes or illegal shelters do not
receive patents? Are tax patents being used as marketing tools to mislead taxpayers
into believing that the product they are buying has a federal government seal of
approval?
I look forward to discussing these issues with the Internal Revenue Service, the
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the tax experts joining us today as witnesses. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. Chairman
Camp. Thank you. Again, I also want to welcome our witnesses. We will start with
Mr. Toupin. Thank you both for being here. I know you have very busy schedules.
We have your full statements, those will be part of the record and you can summarize those in 5 minutes. You now may begin. Thank you for being here.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

STATEMENT OF JAMES TOUPIN, GENERAL COUNSEL, U.S.

PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

Mr. TOUPIN. Chairman Camp, Ranking Member Tubbs Jones,

members of the Subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to testify
today on the patenting of business method inventions concerning
tax strategies. I appreciate the opportunity to provide some background on the subject, which I hope will be helpful to the Subcommittee.
In administering the U.S. patent laws, the USPTO takes its direction from Congress and our reviewing courts. The current act
specifies four basic statutory requirements that must be met to obtain a patent. The claimed invention must define eligible subject
matter and have utility. It must be novel. It must not have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made. It must be sufficiently disclosed in the text of
the patent application to show that the inventor had possession of
the claimed invention upon filing, and the skilled practitioner
would be able to practice the claimed invention without undue experimentation. The threshold inquiry as to whether subject matter
is eligible to receive patent protection is whether an invention is
new and useful and whether it fits into one of the enumerated categories, which includes any process, machine, manufacturer or
composition of matter or any new and useful improvement thereof.
As discussed in greater detail in my written statement, the
courts have recognized the breadth of this statute. In particular,
the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the 1998 decision
in State Street v. Signature Financial explicitly rejected the notion
that a business method exception exists in United States patent
law. It thus ended any notion that inventions deemed to be business methods, by whatever criteria, would be excluded from patent
ability on that basis alone. State Street created a new awareness
that business method claims could be patented. Patent applications
in that area went from 1,500 filings in Fiscal Year 1998 to approximately 9,000 filings in Fiscal Year 2001. Filings are currently running at a somewhat lower rate of 8,200 filings a year.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00009

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

6
This expansion of business method patent applications created
challenges for the USPTO and the business community. Because
business methods had been commonly not regarded as eligible for
patenting, examiners did not have available to them a large database of prior art. Thus, in a number of areas the office undertook
extensive outreach to assure that it had the best possible information on published business methods.
In determining novelty and obviousness, the examiner consults a
variety of databases directed to the subject matter being examined.
For applications involving tax strategies, the resources include U.S.
patent databases, foreign databases, IRS databases available to the
public, and a significant number of commercial databases directed
to accounting, finance, and banking. Moreover, the examiner will
under USPTO rules request from the applicant information as to
which section or sections of the Tax Code are applicable so that
those sections may be consulted.
To gain knowledge and expand, and improve our examination of
applications relating to tax strategies, the USPTO has partnered
with IRS and is currently consulting with the American Bar Associations tax section about possible training and information exchange opportunities. Our existing partnership with the IRS has
resulted in training by the IRS for our finance examiners on financial products, wealth transfer, and pensions. The USPTO also provided a modified patent examiner initial training session to selected IRS employees. We are looking at proposed training by the
American Bar Association (ABA) that would complement the training that we received and provided to the IRS. We are also discussing follow-up training with the IRS on tax strategy matters.
We will continue to conduct business partnership events with
Members of the financial services community at large.
Mr. Chairman, the grant of a patent enables a patent owner to
exclude for a limited time others from making, using, offering for
sale, or selling the invention in the United States. It is not a license to use the invention or a stamp of approval by the Federal
government. This principle applies to tax strategy patents as well
as to any other patent.We at the USPTO recognize that the patenting of tax planning strategies has raised a number of concerns
in Congress, the IRS, and the financial services community. We
look forward to working with all interested parties to make sure
that these concerns are appropriately addressed within the scope of
applicable law. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Toupin follows:]

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Statement of James Toupin, General Counsel, U.S. Patent and Trademark

Office
Introduction
Chairman Camp, Ranking Member McNulty, and Members of the Subcommittee:
Thank you for inviting me to testify today on the patenting of business method
inventions, and specifically on those business method patents concerning tax strategies. Patents in this area are a topic of considerable interest and debate and, as has
been the case in the past with certain other categories of invention, concerns have
been raised about whether business methods involving tax strategies should be patentable. I commend the Subcommittee for holding this hearing.
U.S. Patent System
In order to understand the patentability of business method inventions, I believe
it is helpful to first review the underpinnings of the U.S. patent system itself and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

PO 00000

Frm 00013

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

10
applicant information as to which section or sections of the tax code are applicable
so that those sections may be consulted.
Importantly, in order to gain knowledge and improve our examination of applications relating to tax strategies, the USPTO is working on developing two significant
relationships. Specifically, the USPTO has partnered with the IRS and is currently
developing a partnership with the American Bar Associations Section of Taxation
(ABA) to pursue training and information exchange opportunities. The partnership
with the IRS has resulted in training by the IRS for our finance examiners on financial products, wealth transfer, and pensions. The USPTO also provided a modified
Patent Examiner Initial Training (PEIT) for non-examiners for selected IRS employees. Topics included: (a) statutory requirements of a patent application; (b) concept
of prior art under 35 USC 102 and 103; (c) patentability under 35 USC 102 and
103; (d) identifying and searching relevant databases; and (e) and post-grant review
procedures by the USPTO for issued patents. We are looking at proposed training
by the ABA that would complement the training received by and provided to the
IRS. We are also discussing follow-up training with the IRS on tax strategy issues.
Thus, as it has in other areas of business method practice, the USPTO is actively
seeking assistance to assure that it has the best possible information and understanding of the tax strategy area. While the USPTO does not employ outside sources
or experts as consultants in the examination of specific patent applications directed to tax strategies, we are developing the expertise necessary to examine these
types of applications. Moreover, the publication of applications now allows participation by third parties in the examination process.
Publication of Applications
Approximately 90% of patent applications are published 18 months after the earliest effective filing date, although an applicant may request that the application not
be published if the invention has not been and will not be the subject of an application filed in a foreign country that requires publication 18 months after filing. Following publication, the application for patent is no longer held in confidence by the
USPTO and any member of the public may gain access through our website to the
entire file history of the application.
Third-Party Participation During the Examination Process
The Patent Act places limitations on the USPTOs ability to entertain third-party
submissions in examining patent applications. In particular, 35 USC 122(c) requires
the USPTO to ensure that no protest or other form of pre-issuance opposition may
be initiated after an application is published except on consent of the applicant. Accordingly, under 37 CFR 1.291 and 1.99, although a third party may file a protest
against a pending application before the date it is published or allowed, once an application is published or a notice of allowance mailed, a third-party may only submit
prior art, without comment.
After the patent is granted, there are other procedures by which a third party
may challenge an issued patent.
USPTO Review and Thrid-Party Participation After the Patent Issues
Post-grant review of patent claims takes place before the USPTO under certain
circumstances, including when: (1) a patentee files an application to reissue a patent
to correct at least one error in the patent, (2) an applicant and a patentee claim
the same invention and an interference is declared between the patentee and the
applicant, and the applicant seeks judgment based on unpatentability of patent
claims, and (3) a patent owner or third party requests the reexamination of a patent.
Congress has incrementally added to the range of proceedings within the
USPTOs jurisdiction under which third parties can invoke Office review of issued
patents. Ex parte reexamination, enacted in 1980, permits a third party to petition
for reexamination of the patent. In 1984, section 135 of the Patent Act was amended
to allow issues of patentability, as well as priority, to be included in interference
proceedings. As part of the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 (AIPA), Congress created inter partes reexamination, whereby the third party could participate
in the reexamination proceeding and appeal to the USPTOs administrative Board
of Patent Appeals and Interferences.The AIPAs inter partes reexamination practice
was expanded in 2002 to afford third parties the right to appeal to the CAFC.
The most common third-party participation is through reexamination proceedings.
An important check on patent quality relates to the occasions when prior art (i.e.,
printed publications and patents) is brought to the USPTOs attention that may
raise a substantial new question of patentability. Often, this evidence may be identified and submitted by a third party, such as a commercial rival that wishes to challenge the patents validity. Congress established this administrative procedure for

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00014

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

11
the USPTO to take a second look at an issued patent and consider questions of validity during the life of the patent.
However, although Congress has increased, through these amendments, the
USPTOs role in helping guarantee the efficacy of the patent system after patent
issuance, none of these procedures alone, or collectively, has proven sufficient to optimize the USPTOs post-grant capability.
Accordingly, the USPTO recommended a new post-grant review procedure in its
21st Century Strategic Plan. A version of such a procedure is currently under consideration in Congress. It would serve as a quicker, lower cost alternative to expensive litigation in reviewing patent validity questions. Such a procedure would complement rather than displace ongoing quality-focused initiatives at USPTO, which
include measures to address the hiring, training, certification and retention of an
adequate number of examiners. The USPTO will work with Congress and other
stakeholders in developing a post-grant review procedure that effectively serves the
interests of the patent community.
Conclusion
We recognize that the patentability of tax planning strategies has raised a number of concerns in Congress, the Internal Revenue Service and the financial services
community. We look forward to working with all interested parties to make sure
those concerns are appropriately addressed in a manner consistent with applicable
law, rules and procedures.
Thank you.
f

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Now the Honorable

Mark Everson. You have 5 minutes and your statement also will
be part of the record.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MARK EVERSON,

COMMISSIONER, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

Mr. EVERSON. Thank you. Chairman Camp, Ms. Tubbs Jones,

Congressmen, I am pleased to be before the Subcommittee today to
discuss this important issue of patenting tax products. At the IRS,
we constantly work to improve our service to taxpayers. By service, we mean enabling taxpayers to understand the tax law and
helping them to meet their obligations under the Code. Patented
products can help taxpayers plan for and pay their taxes. Patents
can encourage the invention of software to make paying taxes easier. In this regard, patented or trademark products can ease the
compliance burden on taxpayers and lessen the enforcement load
for the IRS. That having been said, taxpayers should understand
what a tax patent really is, or rather what it is not. A patent is
not a government seal of approval for a particular product. A patent simply protects the invention against infringement by others.
In the area of tax structures or strategy, a patent has no bearing
on whether a tax product is legitimate or not. That is for the IRS
and the courts to determine.
In fact, over time, proliferation of tax patents may create enforcement problems. We have been concerned that some taxpayers may
attempt to patent abusive tax schemes. Fortunately, thus far, we
have found little evidence of this, but we remain watchful. The rising use of patents for tax strategies and structures will also place
a burden on tax professionals. A lawyer may need to do an extensive search of the United States Patent and Trademark Office databases to determine whether advice to a client, such as tax planning
strategies, could be a patent infringement. This can be a time-consuming and complex process. Without such a search, a practitioner

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00027

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

24
of years to hire people with financial type backgrounds who do not
also have other technical backgrounds, and we are hoping to add
to our expertise in that way.
Mr. WELLER. So, all these people that you have mentioned,
what is the number again, 40?
Mr. TOUPIN. Well, there are 26 and I described
Mr. WELLER. Twenty-six but all 26 of them are engaged on assessing these applications?
Mr. TOUPIN. I dont know exactly what the assignment is of
each of these people. The finance area is broader than the tax.
Mr. WELLER. You feel there is a need to hire additional people
to address this type of application?
Mr. TOUPIN. In the business methods area generally, which is
a large and expanding area of our practice, we are looking. I cant
say exactly when we expand that, how many of them will specifically be assigned to tax matters.
Mr. WELLER. Admittedly, this is a new subject for me, realizing
people are patenting business and tax strategies. How widespread
is an effort to patent business strategies, essentially putting something in paper and saying this strategy needs to be patented to protect our intellectual property rights?
Mr. TOUPIN. As I indicated, in terms of tax strategies in particular, and that describes a variety of different kind of structured
processes, we have issued about 40. There are published
Mr. WELLER. You have issued 40 patents on tax strategies already?
Mr. TOUPIN. Variously described. Some of them may or may not
exactly fit the definition that you are using, and about 60 published
applications. In the business method area as a whole, well, we are
running about 8,500 applications a year. So, it is a very small part
relative to the overall.
Mr. WELLER. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman CAMP. Thank you. Would any other Members seek to
inquire? All right. I want to thank our witnesses very much for
their very helpful testimony and appreciate your attendance.
Thank you very much. We will now begin panel two, including Mr.
Richard S. Gruner, professor of law at Whittier Law School; Ms.
Ellen Aprill, associate dean of Academic Programs, professor of law
at Loyola Law School; and Dennis Belcher, a partner at
McGuireWoods of Richmond, Virginia. I want to thank you all for
coming this morning. We do have your written testimony. You will
have 5 minutes to summarize your statement and then we will go
to questions after all three of you have an opportunity to make
your statements. Why dont we begin with Mr. Gruner. Again, welcome, and thank you for being here.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

STATEMENT OF RICHARD S. GRUNER, PROFESSOR OF LAW,

WHITTIER LAW SCHOOL, COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA

Mr. GRUNER. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

it is my honor and privilege to be here with you today and contribute to the efforts of this Subcommittee. Let me use my limited
amount of time to summarize how I think we got here on this extraordinary occasion discussing the intersection of patent law and

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00028

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

25
tax law, two areas of the law that until recently most parties would
have said could not intersect. Yet, here we are.
The emergence of tax planning patents reflects the convergence
of three important trends: one legal, one technological, and one professional. First, patentable subject matter standards have been
steadily expanding in scope. Federal court standards have recognized over the past two decades that our patent system should encourage and reward advances in fields as divorced from traditional
physical engineering and chemistry as bio-engineering, computer
software, communication information processing, accounting recordkeeping, financial investment strategies, and business methods.
In this march toward ever broader patent system scope, it is a
small step to extend patents to advantageous tax planning methods, which produce important financial results for taxpayers.
Second, a technological trend. The impacts of computers and
computer-based analyses have expanded the range of sophisticated
tax planning strategies that are appreciated and implementable.
Computer analyses of potential asset and income management
strategies and tax results have expanded our understanding of
what is desirable, leading to types of potentially patentable tax
planning methods which would not have been understood a few
years ago.
On the implementation side, computer management and tracking
processes allow for the implementation of tax planning strategies
which would not have been possible in an earlier era. These developments in computer technologies applied to tax planning methods
have expanded the range of computer-related tax planning patents
just as the presence of computers has expanded the number of patents in so many fields.
Finally, a professional change. The increasing issuance of patents
in the financial and tax planning services fields may encourage
firms to extend more resources toward the development of highly
sophisticated methods for tax planning, with the amount of those
resources augmented by expectations of large rewards achieved
through patent control of the resulting innovations. If a given advance developed by a firm can only be marketed by the firm to that
firms particular client set, and may become available for marketing by competitors for disclosure of the method, the firm pursuing the development of the method will only be encouraged to devote such resources to the development of the method as will be
paid back in extra payments from their own clients in later transactions.
However, if a firm can develop a sophisticated new tax planning
strategy and know that it can look to patents as a source of rewards, the firm will be encouraged to develop that strategy with
a devotion of greater resources, knowing that all the taxpayers who
wish to benefit from using the method will need to pay a royalty
to gain this advantage. Under this latter type of system, the full
range of taxpayer advantages from a given new technique will define the extent of development expenditures that are justified in
producing it. This system will also encourage firms to focus on the
types of highly innovative, non-obvious extensions of prior designs
that are capable of qualifying for patents.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00029

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

26
This last analysis suggests why patents on tax planning methods, though highly foreign and seemingly dysfunctional to tax planners at this time, may ultimately be beneficial to this field. If the
future of tax planning methods lays in highly sophisticated computer-intensive means of asset and income management, then substantial development rewards and protections may be needed to encourage the invention of these methods. Patents on such methods
will encourage the very best designers of such methods to devote
their time to this kind of development. Patents will also encourage
the devotion of extensive combinations of computer and financial
accounting resources for the development of these methods with
the knowledge that the successful results can lead to valuable patents. This type of development pattern has prevailed in a number
of other fields where patents serve to allow smaller, highly innovative concerns to focus on innovation with the assurance that other
less innovative firms will need to pay for the use of the resulting
innovations.
In short, a patent mediated world of tax planning may be one in
which greater efforts are devoted to the types of innovative tax
planning methods that are non-obvious advances over prior methods and that can qualify for patents. It may also lead to a restructuring in the field where innovators are significantly advantaged in
competition with non-innovators and in which specialists in innovation can be sure that their useful results will be paid for by the
numerous clients and tax specialists who use and benefit from the
innovative tax planning methods which emerge. Thank you, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gruner follows:]

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Statement of Richard S. Gruner, Professor of Law, Whittier Law School,

Costa Mesa, California
It is my pleasure to appear today to offer comments on the role of patents in protecting tax planning methods. A number of United States patents now apply to sequences of steps of asset and income management which are aimed at achieving advantageous tax results for taxpayers. The developers of these methods have claimed
that their tax planning steps are significantly new and useful methods for achieving
practical results and have accordingly obtained patents covering the methods. If
valid, these patents will preclude other parties from using the patented method
without the patent holders permission.
Patents regarding these techniques are emerging as significant concerns within
the tax planning community. Tax attorneys and other tax planning specialists have
raised concerns that patents will limit their ability to provide valuable services to
their clients and produce unexpected patent infringement liability for themselves
and their clients. At the same time, parties seeking and obtaining these patents assert that they have developed advances in tax planning methods which are significant departures from earlier methods and deserving of the sorts of patent protections and rewards that have traditionally applied to useful advances.
For its part, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has implicitly agreed that advances in this field can qualify for patents by issuing a number
of patents in this domain. Records of published patent applications regarding tax
planning methods indicate that the number of patent applications in this field is
growing, meaning that the number of issued patents and related patent disputes
concerning tax planning patents is likely to expand in the future.
My comments today will not attempt to address all of the legal issues that may
surround the issuance and enforcement of tax planning patents. I will focus on three
principle areas. First, I will describe the ways that patents may influence the development of tax planning methods and other intangible inventions that entail the
management of information and other intangible items for personal gain. Second,
I will describe one of the existing tax planning patents and the manner in which
it may be enforced against taxpayers, attorneys, accountants, and financial institu-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00030

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

tions. Third, I will suggest actions that will improve the quality of patents issued
in this area, with the goal of maintaining the incentive effect of patents in this important area while diminishing the effect of improperly issued patents in deterring
legitimate tax planning strategies.
I. The Role of Patents in Promoting Tax Planning Innovations
A. Introduction to Utility Patents
A patent for an invention gives the inventor the ability to control the use and
commercialization of the invention for a limited period. A United States patent is
granted based on an application to and review for legal sufficiency by the USPTO.
Generally, the term of a new patent is 20 years from the date on which the application for the patent was filed in the United States. United States patents are effective only within the United States, U.S. territories, and U.S. possessions.
The right conferred by the patent grant is to exclude others from making, using,
offering for sale, or selling the patented invention in the United States or importing
the invention into the United States. 35 U.S.C. 271(a). What is granted is not the
right to make, use, offer for sale, sell or import the invention, but rather the right
to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the invention. Once a patent is issued, the patentee must enforce the patent without aid
of the USPTO.
There are three types of patents:
1. Utility patents covering new and useful devices, materials, and processes;
2. Design patents covering new, original, and ornamental designs for articles of
manufacture; and
3. Plant patents covering distinct and new varieties of asexually reproducing
plants.
When parties speak of patents, they usually mean utility patents. In the remainder of these written comments, the term patent refers to a utility patent. Utility
patents are granted for new inventions that are useful, including procedures for undertaking a useful task. Most tax planning patents will be aimed at protecting useful procedures for obtaining desirable tax results.
Under the Patent Act, any person who invents or discovers any new and useful
process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent, subject to the conditions and requirements
of the law. 35 U.S.C. 101. Advances falling within this statutory definition are
patentable subject matter. The word process in this standard is defined by law
as a process, act or method. The term machine as used in the statute includes artificially created assemblages that operate on some other subject matter, often transforming that additional matter. The term manufacture refers to articles that are
made, and includes all manufactured articles. The term composition of matter relates to chemical compositions and may include mixtures of ingredients as well as
new chemical compounds. These classes of subject matter taken together include
practically everything that is made by man and the processes for making the products.
The Patent Act specifies that patentable inventions must be useful. The term
useful in this connection refers to the condition that an invention has a useful purpose and operates to achieve its intended purpose. Court cases have held that steps
for expanding financial profits or keeping track of financial activities in a useful way
are examples of processes that meet the utility requirements of the patent statute.
In light of this, tax planning methods leading to advantageous tax results and lower
tax liabilities for taxpayers are likely to be seen as having sufficient practical utility
to qualify for a patent.
Judicial interpretations of the Patent Act have defined some limits on the field
of subject matter that can be covered by a utility patent. For example, it has been
held that laws of nature, naturally occurring phenomena, and abstract ideas are not
patentable subject matter.
A patent cannot be obtained upon a mere idea or suggestion. A patent is only
available for a new machine, manufacture, chemical or process with specific,
implementable details and not for the idea or suggestion of the new invention. A
complete description of the actual machine or other subject matter for which a patent is sought is required in a patent application and in the resulting patent if one
issues.
In order to qualify for a patent, an invention must not only be new (that is, different from prior designs publicly known as of the date of invention), but also a nonobvious departure from the prior knowledge in the field. See 35 U.S.C. 103. In

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00035

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

32
ongoing innovators that can bargain for the latest designs in their fields and keep
the firms competitive in consumer markets.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

II. Anatomy of a Tax Planning Patent and Its Potential Enforcement

In order to appreciate the potential scope and enforcement impact of patents on
tax planning methods, it is useful to consider the terms of one of these patents. This
section will briefly describe a patent issued in 2003 covering a method for achieving
an advantageous tax result by establishing and managing in a specified fashion a
trust funded by a particular type of stock options.
A. The SOGRAT Patent
United States patent number 6567790 purports to protect:
[a]n estate planning method for minimizing transfer tax liability with respect to
the transfer of the value of stock options from a holder of stock options to a family
member of the holder. The method comprises establishing a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT) funded with nonqualified stock options. The method maximizes
the transfer of wealth from the grantor of the GRAT to a family member by minimizing the amount of estate and gift taxes paid. By placing the options outside the
grantors estate, the method takes advantage of the appreciation of the options in
said GRAT.
U.S. Patent No. 6567790. A nonqualified stock option for tax law purposes is
any stock option that does not qualify as an incentive stock option (ISO) and which
does not receive the favorable tax treatment accorded to ISOs. Generally, a nonqualified stock option is not taxed at the date it is granted, but is instead taxed
upon the exercise of the option. The amount subject to tax is the difference between
the fair market value of the stock on the date of the exercise of the option and the
exercise price paid for the stock. After the exercise of an option, the taxpayer holds
the corresponding stock as a capital asset and is subject to normal capital gains
rules on the disposition of the stock.
Because the GRAT used in this method involves stock options, the patent applicant describes this method as involving a Stock Option Grantor Retained Annuity
Trust or SOGRAT. As a further measure of intellectual property protection, the
patent applicant claims trademark protection for the use of the term SOGRAT
(this claim is noted in the patent covering the method). In the remainder of this
document, the above patent is referred to as the SOGRAT patent.
B. Scope of Protection
The scope of protection granted by this patent can only be gauged from the claims
stated in the patent. These claims, located at the end of the patent document, describe the metes and bounds of the legal rights conferred by the issuance of the
patent. The patent holder will be able to prevent others from using a tax planning
method only if the method of the other party is with the description of the protected
process provided by the claims. In patent law terms, a tax planning method of a
party other than the patent holder will be infringing if the claims describe or read
on the method of that other party.
The SOGRAT patent has a number of claims describing different versions of the
claimed method. The first claim is the broadest and reads as follows:
What is claimed is:
1. A method for minimizing transfer tax liability of a grantor for the transfer of
the value of nonqualified stock options to a family member grantee, the stock options having a stated exercise price and a stated period of exercise, the method performed at least in part within a signal processing device and comprising: establishing a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT); funding said GRAT with assets
comprising stock options, the stock options having a determined value at the time
the transfer is made; setting a term for said GRAT and a schedule and amount of
annuity payments to be made from said GRAT; and performing a valuation of the
stock options as each annuity payment is made and determining the number of
stock options to include in the annuity payment.
The portions of this claim separated by semicolons identify the steps or elements
that a tax planning process will need to have to fall within this claim and to be
infringing. These elements provide a checklist for analyzing the activities of other
parties for the purpose of determining if they are infringing this patent. Using this
approach, a party would appear to infringe this patent (assuming that the patent
is valid and enforceable) if the party (using, at least in part, a signal processing
device) completed the following steps:
1. establishing a Grantor Retained Annuity Trust (GRAT);
2. funding said GRAT with assets comprising stock options, the stock options having a determined value at the time the transfer is made;

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00036

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

33
3. setting a term for said GRAT and a schedule and amount of annuity payments
to be made from said GRAT; and
4. performing a valuation of the stock options as each annuity payment is made
and determining the number of stock options to include in the annuity payment.
Assuming that a tax planning method had these features, it would be infringing,
even if the method had other details or characteristics. If a method did not include
exact counterparts to every one of these steps, it would still be infringing if it included an equivalent action to each of these steps. A step will generally be seen as
an equivalent of a claimed step if the alternative step involves a similar means of
operation, function, and result to the counterpart step in the patent claims.
C. Potential Infringers
1. Clients
Clients for whom tax planning methods are implemented and who benefit from
the resulting taxation outcomes would be the primary or direct infringers of a patented method like that described above. A party seeking to implement this strategy
without the patent holders permission could be enjoined from doing so. A party who
implemented the patented method (even without being aware of the patent involved)
would be liable for patent infringement damages equal to a reasonable royalty payment for use of the patented method. 35 U.S.C. 284. If the party was aware of the
patent and aware that the course of conduct he or she contemplated was apparently
covered by the patent, but went ahead anyway with the infringing conduct having
no good faith reason to believe that it was non-infringing or that the patent was
invalid, the party could be held liable for punitive damages of up to three times the
patent holders compensatory damages. Id.
2. Attorneys/Accountants
The federal Patent Act holds persons who induce others to engage in patent infringement equally liable with the parties who actually undertake the infringement.
35 U.S.C. 271(b). The notion here is that an inducer is essentially an aider and
abetter of the patent infringer and should be equally responsible for patent damages. Numerous cases hold that persons who instruct others how to infringe a patent or who help to design implementations of an infringing design are deemed to
be inducers of infringement and liable under the Patent Act. Since tax attorneys
and accountants who specialize in tax matters will commonly provide advice, instruction, and relevant document creation services aiding clients in setting up tax
planning strategies, if these professionals are aware that the tax planning methods
that they are helping clients to implement are patented, attorneys and accountants
may incur patent infringement liability by inducing the patent infringement of their
clients.
In order to establish liability for inducement of patent infringement, the following
elements must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence: (1) an inducers
knowledge of the asserted patent; (2) the presence of infringement by the party allegedly induced; (3) an inducers actual intent to cause the acts which he knew or
should have known would induce actual infringements; and (4) the commission of
a positive act that materially furthers the infringement, not merely the power to act
or the failure to act. TI Group Automotive Systems, (North America), Inc. v. VDO
North America L.L.C., 62 USPQ2d 1599, 1601 (D. Del. 2002); see also Black & Decker (US) Inc. v. Catalina Lighting, Inc., 953 F. Supp. 134, 138 (E.D. Va. 1997). Where
a tax attorney or accountant is aware of a tax planning method patent and instructs
a client or materially assists a client in carrying out the patented tax planning
method, all of these criteria would seem to be met.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

3. Financial Institutions Managing Accounts

Financial institutions or other entities that agree to carry out a patented tax planning method (perhaps by establishing or acting as trustee for the relevant trust)
may also carry out the patented steps and be liable as a direct patent infringer.
Here, the financial institution would be acting as the agent of the taxpayer for
whom the infringement was undertaken, but this will not undercut the fact that the
institution has carried out the patented steps and has acted as an infringer.
III. Potential Steps to Limit the Issuance and Enforcement of Improper Tax Planning Patents
A number of steps may be useful in ensuring that tax method patents are limited
to innovative tax planning methods that are significant, nonobvious departures from
prior methods in this field. This section summarizes these possible strategies for future action.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00037

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

34
A. Identify Field-Specific Prior Art Sources for Use in Patent Examination Processes
and Enforcement Disputes
Tax specialists might profitably work with the USPTO to identify publicly accessible sources of information about past tax planning strategies so that these known
strategies can be taken into account in the processing of applications for patents on
tax planning methods. These prior art sources are different in both location and content from many other types of information commonly considered by patent examiners and a complete picture of the prior art against which tax method patent applications should be measured may require personnel in the patent office to gain new
information on the sources and meaning of publicly available descriptions of state
of the art tax planning methods. This same information on sources and implications of prior art, if made available to the public, would assist defendants in patent
cases to challenge the validity of improvidently issued patents on tax planning
methods.
B. Develop Means to Expand the Knowledge of Patent Examiners Regarding Tax
Planning Methods and Improvement Patterns
To the extent that methods of tax planning and techniques for extending prior tax
planning methods to produce new methods are unfamiliar to patent examiners,
presentations by tax practitioners to USPTO personnel on current tax planning
techniques may be highly valuable. These sorts of presentations might be modeled
on similar information sessions that the USPTO conducted to learn more about computer software programming methods and advances in the period when software
patents and their examination were growing concerns for the Patent Office.
C. Encourage the Patent Office to Frequently Reexamine Tax Planning Patents
The USPTO has the ability to reexamine and invalidate issued patents in light
of prior art that was not originally considered in the initial examination of the patents. Given the uncertain state of prior art in the field of tax planning patents, a
policy adopted by the Patent Office which encourages the submission of prior art
in this field to trigger reexamination proceedings might be a valuable means to ensure that unwarranted patents do not reach the stage of active enforcement.
D. Develop an Information Distribution System to Inform Tax Practitioners of Assertedly Restricted Tax Planning Methods
An additional useful advance might be a system for better informing tax practitioners regarding the issuance of patents on particular tax planning methods to prevent the inadvertent implementation of a patented strategy without gaining appropriate permission from the patent holder. This type of information distribution system might be as simple as a means for specially flagging patents on tax planning
methods in the patent records system or otherwise identifying patents in this category to facilitate quick searching for patents affecting this type of legal practice.
The Patent Office has begun to implement a special coding system for patents in
this field, but it is unclear that all of the relevant patents are being identified by
the appropriate coding. The Patent Office also might consider the issuance of special
reports on this category of patents given their new character and the general unfamiliarity of many tax practitioners with the types of tax planning patents that are
emerging.
E. Implement a Public Comment System Whereby the IRS Notes the Ineffectiveness
or Impropriety of Patented Tax Planning Methods
As a matter of taxpayer protection, a system under which the IRS identifies patented tax planning methods as either abusive or incapable of achieving a meaningful tax advantage would help taxpayers and their attorneys and accountants to
properly discount the value of the patented methods involved and to avoid those
practices. To the extent that recognizing a tax planning method with a patent suggests that the method is particularly special and valuable, this type of corrective information from the IRS might be needed to ensure that taxpayers and tax specialists make decisions about tax planning methods with an accurate picture of the
merit of the methods involved.
IV. Conclusion
The emergence of tax planning patents reflects the confluence of three important
trends in patent law. First, patentable subject matter standards have been steadily
expanding in scope. Federal court standards have, over the past two decades, recognized that our patent system should encourage and reward advances in fields as divorced from traditional physical engineering and chemistry as bioengineering, computer software, communication information processing, accounting record keeping,
financial investment strategies, and business methods. In this march towards ever

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00038

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

35
broader patent system scope, it is a small step to extend patents to advantageous
tax planning methods which produce important financial results for taxpayers.
Second, the impacts of computers and computer-based analyses have expanded
the range of sophisticated tax planning strategies that are appreciated and
implementable. Computer analyses of potential asset and income management strategies and tax results have expanded our understanding of what is desirable, leading
to types of potentially patentable tax planning methods which would not have been
understood a few years ago. On the implementation side, computer management
and tracking processes allow for the implementation of tax planning strategies
which would not have been possible in an earlier era. These developments in computer technologies applied to tax planning methods have expanded the range of
computer-related tax planning patents just as the presence of computers has expanded the number of patents in so many fields. See generally Gruner, Better Living
Through Software: Promoting Information Processing Advances Through Patent Incentives, 74 St. Johns L. Rev. 977 (2000).
Third, the increasing frequency of patents in the financial and tax planning services fields may encourage firms to extend more resources towards the development
of highly sophisticated methods for tax planning, with the amount of those resources
augmented by expectations of large rewards achieved through patent control of the
resulting innovations. If a given advance can only be marketed to a given firms particular client set and may become available for marketing by competitors through
public disclosure of the method, the firm pursuing the development of the method
will only be encouraged to devote such resources to the development of the method
as will be paid back in extra payments from their own clients in later transactions.
However, if a firm can count on patent protections for a new and highly innovative
tax planning strategy, the firm will be able to afford to devote greater resources to
the development of the method knowing that all taxpayers who wish the benefit of
using the method will need to pay a royalty to gain this advantage. Under this latter type of system, the full range of taxpayer advantages from a given new technique will define the extent of development expenditures that are justified in producing it. It will also encourage firms to focus on the types of highly innovative,
nonobvious extensions of prior designs that are capable of qualifying for patents. See
generally Gruner, Everything Old is New Again: Obviousness Limitations on Patenting Computer Updates of Old Designs, 9 B.U. J. of Science and Tech. L. 209
(2003).
This last analysis suggests why patents on tax planning methods, while highly
foreign and seemingly dysfunctional to tax planners at present, may ultimately be
beneficial to this field. If the future of tax planning methods lies in highly sophisticated, computer-intensive means of asset and income management, then substantial
development rewards and protections may be needed to encourage the invention of
these methods. Patents on such methods will encourage the very best designers of
such methods to devote their time to this development. Patents will also encourage
the devotion of extensive combinations of computer and financial accounting resources to the development of these methods with the knowledge that successful results can lead to valuable patents. This type of development pattern has prevailed
in a number of other fields where patents serve to allow smaller, highly innovative
concerns to focus on innovation, with the assurance that other, less innovative firms
will need to pay for use of the resulting innovations.
In short, a patent-mediated world of tax planning may be one in which greater
efforts are devoted to the types of innovative tax planning methods that are nonobvious advances over prior methods and that can qualify for patents. It may also
lead to a restructuring of the field where innovators are significantly advantaged
in competition with non-innovators and in which specialists in innovation can be
sure that their useful results will be paid for by the numerous clients and tax specialists who use and benefit from the innovative tax planning methods which
emerge.
f

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Ms. Aprill, you have 5
minutes as well.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00039

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

STATEMENT OF ELLEN APRILL, ASSOCIATE DEAN OF ACADEMIC PROGRAMS, PROFESSOR OF LAW, AND JOHN E. ANDERSON CHAIR IN TAX LAW, LOYOLA LAW SCHOOL, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA

Ms. APRILL. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, thank

you for inviting me here today. This morning, I would like to discuss three points briefly: first the practical issues raised by tax
strategy patents, first; second, how we might improve the quality
of such patents; and, third, how the policy behind tax laws and patent laws compare. In brief, I want to suggest to you that because
tax strategy patents constitute a government-granted monopoly regarding interpretation of and compliance with Federal laws, they
differ from other business method patents in ways that raise concerns among all of us and require attention from the Subcommittee, the PTO, the IRS, the Treasury, and associations of tax
professionals.
First, the impact on tax practice. The adverse consequences for
infringing or inducing the infringement of patents can be substantial. If tax patents proliferate, tax professionals who are advising
clients on ordinary transactions will need to begin to conduct patent searches and seek expert advice to protect themselves and their
clients. I wanted to stress the concern for the individual client.
Moreover, the proliferation of tax strategy patents could affect professional culture. Historically, tax lawyers have shared information
and ideas freely. If patents become an important part of the landscape, the atmosphere will become more secretive, less cooperative,
and the tax system as a whole will suffer.
Second, improving the patent examination process. As we have
heard today, this is a new area for patent examiners. To ensure
that, the quality of patents that are granted, the tax community,
both public and private, need to assist patent examiners in understanding the tax law and in identifying prior art in non-patent literature. As you have heard, such efforts have begun and they need
to be expanded. As we have also heard, under the patent law, however, questions of tax policy are not for the Patent Office; they are
for Treasury and the IRS to decide. I suggest that Treasury and
the IRS establish a program letting everyone know they are going
to be reviewing tax patents to prevent any abuses. I suggest that
some changes be made so that IRS and Treasury can see the patent application sooner. Again, I want Treasury to be involved as
well because of the policy concerns raised by the ordinary transactions, and not only the extraordinary tax shelter ones.
Finally, let me turn to a comparison to patent policy and tax policy. The fundamental purpose of providing patents, as I understand
it, is to promote innovation. Again, as we have heard, there does
not seem to be a lot of need to provide economic incentives for the
development, promotion, and implementation of tax planning strategies. The purposes of our tax laws is to raise money for the government to protect the public. Granting a government monopoly in
the form of a patent that could undermine this key Federal function, the collection of revenue, and affect compliance with Federal
law seems peculiar to me, if not contradictory, and raises fundamental questions about the appropriateness of such patents. We
need the policy people to work on that basic question.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00044

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

41
the PTO to do so may be appropriate and desirable.16 Other more general legislative
changes to our patent law already under discussion, such as expanded post-grant
opposition that would permit submission of the common general knowledge of practitioners . . . not fully described in the published literature likely to be consulted
by patent examiners, could also be useful in ensuring the quality of tax strategy
patents.17 Proposed legislation applicable to all business method patents would be
helpful for the issues raised by tax strategy patents as well.18

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

C. Patent Policy and Tax Policy Differ in Important Ways

The fundamental purpose of providing patents, as I understand it, is to promote
innovation. While no one can dispute this as a generally desirable goal, it would be
hard to identify a subject less in need of further innovation than tax planning. Existing economic incentives already provide ample inducement for the development,
promotion, and implementation of tax planning strategies.
The primary purpose of our tax laws is to raise money for the government and
protect the public fisc. Many, perhaps most, tax strategy patents have as their fundamental objective the reduction of federal tax liabilities. While taxpayer efforts to
reduce taxes are, of course, permitted and tax advisers spend many hours in such
efforts, tax strategy patents seem to me different from such efforts because patents
constitute a government-sanctioned monopoly. If tax strategy patents and their use
proliferate, encouraged by the marketing advantages conferred by patents government-granted monopoly and presumption of validity, many tax lawyers anticipate
that there will be a corresponding reduction in federal tax revenues, generating revenue losses that would have to be made up from other sources. Granting a government monopoly in the form of a patent that undermines another key federal functionthe collection of revenueseems peculiar, if not contradictory, and raises fundamental questions about the appropriateness of such patents.
Of course, decisions to limit patent protection legislatively should be taken only
after much deliberation and study.19 Experience with the review programs by professional organizations and the IRS suggested above could be enormously helpful in
evaluating whether legislation prohibiting tax strategy patents should be enacted.
The need for careful deliberation, however, does not rule out the need to consider
such an approach. My hope is that this hearing will be the first step in such consideration.
D. Summary and Conclusion
Allow me to summarize the various concerns I have identified. The proliferation
of tax strategy patents would change and burden tax practice. Given such an impact, it is important that we act to ensure that the examination process be as accurate as possible, particularly with respect to identifying prior art. The PTO should
be provided the necessary resources and training. Professional organizations have
a role to play, both in helping to train PTO personnel and in identifying prior art.
Given the significance of such patents to the proper administration of the tax law,
I have suggested removing any legal obstacles to sharing tax strategy patent applications with the IRS, so that the IRS can review all such patent applications and
16 Such legislation would help to guard against tax strategy patents that are novel in ways
inconsistent with the tax laws, but would not guard against the grant of patents for which prior
art in fact exists. The need for public input on prior art might argue for making all business
method patent applications or at least all tax strategy patents applications public in order that
members of the public could submit instances of prior art during the examination process, but
such a change to the patent law would, I realize, alter substantially the current balance between
public access and confidentiality struck by the statute.
17 Bronwyn H. Half and Dietmar Harhoff, Post-Grant Reviews in the U.S. Patent SystemDesign Choices and Expected Impact, 19 Berkeley Tech. L. J. 1, 13 (2004) (quoting NAtl Acad. of
Sci., A Patent System for the 21st Century (Stephen A. Merrill et al. eds, 2004) at 5. See Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of the Committee
of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on Patent Quality Improvement: Post-Grant Opposition, 108th Congress, 2nd Session, June 24, 2004, Serial No. 91.
18 See Hearing before the Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property of
the Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, on The Business Method Patent Improvement Act of 2001, H.R. 1332, 107th Congress, 1st Session, April 4, 2001, Serial No. 5.
19 For Congressional limitations in connection with patents on particular technologies, such
as the provision immunizing physicians, hospitals, and other health care providers for infringement liability for using patented medical procedures, see Allison and Tiller, supra note 1, at 994
n 19. Congress has enacted some special rules for business method patents. The First Inventor
Defense Act of 1999, Pub. L. No. 106113, 113 Stat. 1536 (codified as amended at 35 U.S.C.
273), creates a special patent-infringement defense if an inventor used a business method in secret and was later sued by a patent holder who had subsequently been granted a patent on the
method.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00045

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

42
take appropriate and early remedial action where necessary. Cooperation between
the IRS and the PTO is essential.
I ask that this Subcommittee continue to monitor tax strategy patents to determine whether they in fact undermine the efficacy of the tax laws and increase tax
compliance burdens, as we tax lawyers fear, or, instead, provide additional incentives for innovation and increase openness regarding new ideas, as patent lawyers
suggest. Such a determination will be vital to further, informed discussion of whether legislation should be enacted to prohibit or limit sharply tax strategy patents.
In closing, I suggest that this Subcommittee view tax strategy patents not as an
instance of the now-established category of business method patents, but as an instance of a potential new categorylegal method patents. Tax strategy patents differ from other business method patents in that they depend on the validity of an
interpretation of law. If patents are permitted for interpretation of the federal tax
laws, creative minds coupled with economic incentive will seekand obtainvalid
patents relating to interpretations of other areas of law, including, for example, litigation strategies. I ask the Subcommittee whether this is a desirable goal for a
country based on the rule of law.
Thank you very much. I would be pleased to answer any questions.
f

Chairman CAMP. Thank you very much. Mr. Belcher.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

STATEMENT OF DENNIS I. BELCHER, PARTNER,

MCGUIREWOODS, LLP, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

Mr. BELCHER. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee, I

want to thank you for bringing this issue to the attention of the
public. I come to you as a practitioner with 30 years of experience.
I also come to you as an officer in the American College of Trust
and Estate Counsel, which is an organization of approximately
2,600 lawyers who specialize in estate planning. We believe that
patenting of tax reduction techniques, particularly estate planning
techniques or transfer tax reduction techniques, is creating a problem for practitioners but more importantly a problem for taxpayers.
We also believe that if this is not addressed early, it will no longer
just affect a small group of people, it will affect a larger group of
the taxpayers. As we know, right now there are less than 2 percent
of the population of the country subject to the transfer tax rules.
So, when we see a transfer tax technique being patented, it is serious to our organization and it is serious to our clients but that is
less than 2 percent of the population. What we are worried about
is if we do not stop this patenting of tax reduction techniques, it
is going to spread and affect a larger group of people.
When we first encountered this was in 2003 when a patent was
issued that was called a stock option grantor retained annuity
trust. It is the SOGRAT patent. When we first discussed it in 2004,
everyone that I talked to was shocked that we had to worry about
patenting estate planning techniques, particularly this one because
Congress in 1994 created a grantorcreated the principles by
which you could use a grantor retained annuity trust. Then in
1999, a patent was filed that was granted and issued in 2003 that
took a grantor retained annuity trust and coupled it with a nonqualified stock option. Practitioners that I deal with have been
using grantor retained annuities trusts for years, and using them
with a variety of techniques. For example, in my paper I point out
that we used agrantor retained annuity trust (GRAT) with a thoroughbred race horse. What you want to use a GRAT with is an
asset that will appreciate significantly in value, such as a non-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00046

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

43
qualified stock option. So, we were surprised when we heard about
the patenting of the technique. Similar to what Ms. Tubbs Jones
colleagues told her when she asked them were they worried about
it, no, they werent worried about it. I submit that they should be
worried about it because in January of this year, there was a lawsuit filed against an individual who had placed non-qualified stock
options into a GRAT, had made a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) because he was a corporate insider, and
then that showed up and then he has been sued. If you read the
complaint, they leave open who else will be sued. You would think
that the representatives who helped put this together will also get
sued.
Now, as Mr. Toupin pointed out, lawyers have ethical obligations
to point out to their clients the techniques that will be used and
the drawbacks to the techniques. At a recent meeting of the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, we took a poll, if you
were advising a client to put non-qualified stock options into a
grantor retained annuity trust, would you be obligated to point out
the existence of the V patent? Yes, you would. What are the choices
that the client will have? Ignore the patent and get sued; dont do
a technique that has been governmentally authorized to minimize
legally your transfer taxes; or pay a license fee.
For the reasons that are set forth in the paper, we believe that
transfer tax reduction techniques, as well as all tax reduction techniques, should not be allowed to be patented. It should be against
public policy that when Congress imposes taxes, I have no choice
but to pay my taxes. I should be allowed to use the principles that
Congress has enacted to allow me to lawfully reduce my taxes. If
someone has a patent on it because that person was the first person to get to the Patent Office, then I have got to pay a toll charge,
a tariff, to use it or I just ignore it at my peril. Taxes are different
than businesses. If there is a patent on a mousetrap, as the Chairman pointed out, I can decide to not use the mousetrap, I can decided to try to do a better mousetrap, or I could get a cat to get
the mice, or I can just ignore the mice. With taxes, I cannot do
that. So, for the reasons that are set forth in our testimony, we believe that patents on tax reduction techniques should not be allowed. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Belcher follows:]

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Statement of Dennis I. Belcher, Partner, McGuireWoods LLP, Richmond,

Virginia
Chairman Camp and distinguished members of the Subcommittee, I am Dennis
I. Belcher, a partner in the Richmond, Virginia office of the law firm McGuireWoods
LLP. I have been in the private practice of law for more than thirty years and have
spent my career representing clients in estate planning. In my law practice, I advise
clients on how to minimize federal and state estate, gift and generation-skipping
taxes (transfer taxes) using estate planning techniques so as to maximize the assets passing to family members and other beneficiaries.
I am currently an officer in the American College of Trust and Estate Counsel
(ACTEC). ACTEC is a non-profit professional association comprised of approximately 2,600 lawyers who are selected on the basis of professional reputation and
ability in the field of trusts and estates and having made substantial contributions
to those fields through lecturing, writing, teaching, and bar leadership activities. I
am the past Chairman of the American Bar Associations Real Property, Probate
and Trust Law Section, which has approximately 30,000 members who are interested in the areas of probate, trust law, and real estate law. I am also a member

VerDate Aug 31 2005

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00050

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

47
areas of the tax law and affect more taxpayers. Although GRATs are used only by
those taxpayers subject to the federal estate tax, there may be a rush to the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office when Congress passes the next tax bill with a new
tax minimization provision. The first individual to file a patent should not be rewarded at the expense of those taxpayers trying legitimately to minimize their tax
burdens. Consider the result if an individual had patented the transfer of appreciated securities to a charitable remainder trust, a technique similar in many ways
to a GRAT, when Congress first allowed these types of trusts in 1969.11 Because
a patent holder cannot be compelled to grant a license for a patent, a patent holder
could have precluded any taxpayer from using a charitable remainder trust, which
was a congressionally authorized tax reduction technique, to the detriment of taxpayers and charity. Clearly, this is not in the best interest of the public and should
be against public policy.
Patents on tax reduction techniques are different from other business method patents. Because patents of tax reduction techniques prevent taxpayers from minimizing a burden imposed by law and affecting all taxpayers, it should be against
public policy to allow patenting of tax reduction techniques. Thus, either the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office or Congress should prohibit patents on tax reduction
techniques.
2. Patenting estate planning techniques unfairly increases a taxpayers
costs and federal estate and gift taxes.
Because taxpayers will have to pay a fee to use an estate planning technique authorized by law, many taxpayers will be forced to pay more in an effort legally to
minimize their federal taxes. Before an estate planning advisor recommends that a
client use a patented estate planning technique, the advisor has an obligation to
point out the options and risks to the client of using a patented technique. When
a client is considering the use of a patented estate planning technique, the client
has these options: (a) file a lawsuit to invalidate the patent; (b) ignore the existence
of the patent in the hopes that the patent holder will not discover its use; or (c)
pay a licensing fee to the patent holder for the use of the technique. Because filing
a lawsuit to invalidate the patent is expensive, filing a lawsuit is not a viable option.12 If the client ignores the existence of the patent in the hopes that the patent
holder will not discover its use, the risks to the client can be considerable and can
include paying treble damages to the patent holder.
Patenting estate planning techniques unfairly increases the federal estate and gift
tax liability of taxpayers. Some taxpayers will refuse to pay tribute to the holder
of an estate planning patent. These taxpayers will be forced either to pay more than
their fair share of federal estate and gift taxes or risk being sued for the unauthorized use of a patented technique. If the taxpayer refuses to pay tribute and does
not want to take the risk of unauthorized use of the estate planning technique, the
taxpayer will be forced to forgo the use of an estate planning technique authorized
by law. Because the taxpayer will not be allowed to use this technique, the taxpayer
will pay more than the taxpayers fair share of federal estate and gift taxes.
Under the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the Model Rules), a lawyer
has a duty to explain issues that are likely to result in adverse legal consequences
to the client.13 Thus, an estate planning lawyer may have an ethical duty to learn
about the existence of patents affecting estate planning and inform clients of existing patents on estate planning techniques sought to be used by the lawyers clients.14 Under the Model Rules, lawyers must give candid and competent advice
using any legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation [which is] reasonably necessary.15 A lawyer must explain a clients options to the extent reasonably
necessary to permit the client to make an informed decision on a course of action.16
Because of the possibility of adverse legal consequences to a client from the unauthorized use of a patented estate planning technique, a lawyer may have a duty to
(i) determine the existence of any patent on an estate planning technique under consideration, (ii) inform the client of the existence of all patents, and (iii) advise the
client of the possible adverse consequences of using the technique without the consent of the patent holder.
By allowing a patent on a transfer tax reduction technique, a taxpayer will either
have to obtain the permission of the patent holder to use the technique (presumably
11 Internal

Revenue Code section 664.

to one source, a suit to invalidate a patent may cost in excess of $1,000,000. See,
Patenting Tax Strategies, Trusts and Estates Magazine, March 2004, page 44.
13 Model Rules R. 1.4(b), 2.1 cmt.
14 See Model Rules of Profl Conduct R. 1.1, 1.4, 2.1 (1983).
15 Model Rules R. 1.1, 2.1
16 Model Rules R. 1.4.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

12 According

VerDate Aug 31 2005

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00060

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6602

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

on legal advice for picking a jury, setting up the insanity defense,

all kind of other things that go on in the course of a trial? I see
some frowns being made back there butreal stunned, but I am
stunned.
Mr. BELCHER. What is to prevent it?
Ms. APRILL. Indeed, when I talk to a lot of patent people when
I was working on this and several of the patent professors said to
me, We have been worrying for years about legal method patents,
and I want you to think about this not as a form of business method pattern but a form of legal method patent.
Chairman CAMP. Mr. Gruner?
Mr. GRUNER. Well, let me just say that it is not as scary as that
suggests because the techniques used in the courtroom and legal
practice generally are the common techniques. That is the methodology that is already known.
Ms. TUBBS JONES. Lawyers dont think they are common but
go ahead.
Mr. GRUNER. Those are not going to be non-obvious methods if
in fact the skills that lawyers have used for years to pick a jury
are brought forth as a possible patent.
Ms. TUBBS JONES. Are you a trial lawyer?
Mr. GRUNER. Im sorry?
Ms. TUBBS JONES. Are you a trial lawyer?
Mr. GRUNER. No.
Ms. TUBBS JONES. I thought so.
Chairman CAMP. All right, thank you. Any other questions? I
want to thank the panel. This was an excellent hearing, and very
much appreciate all of your effort and testimony. Thank you very
much. This hearing is now adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Questions From Ms. Tubbs Jones to Mr. Toupin follow:]
Question: Of all of the tax patents that have been issued to date, how many have
generated fees or profits under a licensing agreement for the patent holder? Is the
motive behind seeking a patent to generate a profit or simply to protect ones invention?
Answer: We are unable to respond to the first question because the USPTO does
not require, request or compile information regarding the amount of fees or profits
received by any particular patent owner or category of owners under licensing
agreements.While the motive or motives behind seeking a patent vary among inventors, generating a profit and protecting ones invention are certainly primary motivating factors.
Question: To your knowledge, how many of the patents that have been issued
are being marketed by the patent holder? That is, how many of the tax strategies
that have received patents do you know are being shopped around to taxpayers?
Answer: We are unable to respond to these questions because the USPTO does
not require, request or compile information as to whether a particular patented invention is marketed or the nature or extent of commercialization, if any, of a patented invention.
Question: If taxpayers are believing that a particular tax strategy has some sort
of seal of approval because it has been patented, then should the IRS not be intimately involved in the process of issuing tax patents? To what extent is the IRS
currently involved?
Answer: Current patent law governing the USPTOs authority and operations
does not permit the IRS to be intimately involved in the process of issuing tax patents. In general, applications are by statute confidential for the first eighteen
months and, while most are published upon expiration of that period, the Patent
Act forbids the USPTO to entertain third-party protests to published applications.
Indeed, the IRS has expressed its reluctance to be involved in consideration of individual patent applications. Similarly, though such a belief might arise in other

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00061

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

58
areas, no other governmental agency with regulatory authority over particular
goods, services or practices is intimately involved in the process of examining patent applications that may relate to those goods, services or practices.
While the IRS does not have any direct involvement in the process of issuing tax
patents, the IRS and the USPTO have partnered to pursue mutually beneficial
training and information exchange opportunities. IRS personnel have provided
training to USPTO patent examiners on financial products, wealth transfer and
pensions. The USPTO has provided modified patent examiner initial training to selected IRS employees. We look forward to continuing these training and information-sharing programs.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

f
[Questions From Ms. Tubbs Jones to Mr. Everson follow:]
Question: To your knowledge, how many of the patents that have been issued
are being marketed by the patent holder? That is, how many of the tax strategies
that have received patents do you know are being shopped around to taxpayers?
Answer: Based on our focused review of 14 patents and published applications we
observed little conspicuous marketing of the related patents. In one case a web-site
restriction (we needed to be a client) hampered our ability to drill into the site without a client password. Nevertheless, it is important to note that there is no requirement in US patent law to work (or market) the patented invention.
Question: If taxpayers are believing that a particular tax strategy has some sort
of seal of approval because it has been patented, then should the IRS not be intimately involved in the process of issuing tax patents?
Answer: No. The process of examining and granting patents is outside the IRS
jurisdiction and expertise. Importantly, the granting of a patent on a tax strategy
provides protection to the patent holder against infringement by other parties, but
has no bearing on its legitimacy or illegitimacy under the tax laws, which remain
under the jurisdiction of the IRS. The IRS is, however, considering taking steps to
clarify for taxpayers that the tax treatment of a strategy is unrelated to any patent
protection and that a patent is not an IRS seal of approval.
Question: To what extent is the IRS currently involved?
Answer: The IRS has no involvement with the USPTO in the patent review process and does not review patents to determine whether they are valid or meet the
criteria for patentability. We monitor the USPTO database to gauge the level and
type of potential Tax Strategy Patents. When warranted, we review public applications and previously granted patents to learn more about the strategy in order to
assess the extent of potential aggressiveness of the strategy/technique and to gain
insight into areas where activity is occurring. Furthermore, in the summer of2005
we conducted a cross-Agency workshop that encompassed topics requested by the
USPTO. This was an awareness workshop and was similar to what industries have
historically done with the USPTO to keep them abreast of the latest sources of information, trends in practice, and the like. Our goal was to assist the USPTO in
developing the resources to determine prior art in the area of tax strategies and
structures.
Question: Of those tax patents that you have reviewed, how many do you think
are abusive tax shelters?
Answer: In 2004 and 2005, we performed two searches of the USPTO data base.
The first search, conducted in November 2004, was designed to identify patents and
public applications of known tax shelter strategies. Specifically, we were looking for
transactions the IRS has identified as listed transactions in Notices 200467 and
200513. These Notices describe over thirty transactions the IRS considers tax
avoidance transactions. That search, which was updated in November 2005, and
again in June 2006, found no evidence of patents or public patent applications embodying any abusive tax shelters or listed transactions.
Question: How many do you think are aggressivethere is a good likelihood that
if audited the legality of the tax strategy will be challenged by the IRS?
Answer: It is impossible to definitively determine that a patented structure will
constitute an aggressive tax strategy as used by taxpayers. This determination is
inherently factual and depends on how the transaction is implemented in the real
world. However, we have reviewed patents and applications to determine whether,
as described in the application itself, the patented structure represents a high risk
of aggressive tax planning. We conducted this type of search in July 2005, and update it periodically. The initial search just asked for patents that included the word
tax in applications and granted patents in all classifications. We had fewer than
300 hits. A further analysis showed that approximately 100 of these dealt with

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00062

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

59
business methods and the majority of those appeared to be software models for
computing tax impact or effect, and not tax strategies.
We pared the potential population to 14 patents and public applications primarily
in the areas of employee compensation, wealth transfer, and financial products.
Upon initial examination, none of the 14 patents were found to clearly involve abusive tax avoidance transactions. We have subsequently completed our review of 12
of the 14, one of which was allowed by the applicant to expire for non-payment of
fees. While we do not consider them to be abusive tax avoidance transactions, we
are continuing to review two of the transactions to fully satisfy ourselves that they
do not present an apparent compliance risk requiring follow-up action on our part.
Question: Of those tax patents that you have reviewed, how many would you say
are common tax strategies and how many are truly unique?
Answer: Considering our lack of expertise in the patent review process and the
difficulty in determining uniqueness, most (11 of the 14) of the tax strategy patents and public applications reviewed involved strategies familiar to us and thus appear to be commonly used tried and true techniques. Of course, it is USPTOs role
to decide whether these patents meet the criteria of patentability, such as novelty
and non-obviousness.
f
[Submissions for the record follow:]
Statement of Gavalis, Albert, New York, New York
Patenting tax-advice as a form of further-protecting otherwise privileged
material
Upon conceptually reviewing excerpts from a pending tax-case review June 20,
2006 Wall Street Journal article by Jesse Drucker, pages C1 and C3, where a particular . . . company plans to protect privileged communications with its lawyers,
the article goes on to quote the companys tax-VP:
Just as the IRS relies on the law to keep communications with its attorneys confidential, the law also protects the confidential legal advice that citizens receive from their attorneys.
However, the article further goes on to state that:
The courts long have held that, in certain situations, the attorney-client privilege
cant be invoked if the client shares the communications with outsiders, [such as]
. . . outside auditors . . .
The article concludes with the juxtaposition of competing forces where while on
the one hand:
Tax lawyers have expressed concerns that the IRSs position will prompt
companies to stop sharing tax lawyers analysis to outside accountants,
leaving them with less information when auditing public companies for the protection of investors.
On the other hand:
. . . accounting regulators are not going to stand for accountants blessing transactions without seeing all documentation.
As such, the issue at hand would lend themselves towards the further
protection of tax advice in patented form.
In order for companies to maintain additional protection that otherwise
evaporates when attorney-client privileged material is disseminated to outside auditors, This REQUIRED dissemination of OTHERWISE-privileged
attorney-client material to outside auditors WOULD BENEFIT FROM additional protection that patenting would lend itself towards providing.
f

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

Statement of Stephen T. Schreiner, Hunton & Williams

Having followed with great interest the testimony from the July 13 Hearing on
Issues Relating to the Patenting of Tax Advice, I offer the following statement
which reflects my personal views as a patent attorney and not necessarily the views
of my partners, my firm, or its clients:
I am a registered patent attorney with nearly 10 years experience in preparing,
prosecuting, and enforcing patents. Prior to that, I worked as an electrical engineer
for the Department of the Navy for nearly 9 years.

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00063

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

60
It goes without saying that the Patent Law is esoteric in general and can be particularly elusive when it comes to new technologies. We have seen these debates
play out multiple times over the last 1020 years, such as on whether man-made
forms of life can be patented (early 80s), whether software can be patented (mid90s), and whether business methods can be patented (late 90s).
In every case, we have seen that the Patent Law is a unitary, flexible system that
is adapted to take on new technologies. Each of the above debates played out in
similar fashions. First, there was an expression of profound surprise, even outrage
by some, that certain types of new technology might be susceptible to patenting.
Then there was robust debate.
But eventually these issues were resolved in favor of allowing the disputed technology to be patented so long as it satisfied the long-standing core requirements for
a patent: (1) the invention has utility (is useful in some way), (2) the invention is
novel (is new), and (3) the invention is not obvious (is not a trivial variation of what
is already known by the public).
I submit that the issue of the patenting of tax strategieswhich is really a subset
of the business methods categoryis resolved in exactly the same manner: the tax
strategy invention at issue should be considered for a patent only if it can meet the
utility, novelty, and nonobviousness requirements like any other invention.
I respectfully submit that some of the discussion, especially that leading up to the
hearing, lost focus of the fundamental utility/novelty/nonobviousness standards that
act as a filter in our patent system:
1. The tax strategy issue was incorrectly framed as should somebody be able to
patent a method of complying with the law?
That is not the issue, nor the proper path of inquiry. Many different types of patentable inventions involve a manner of complying with the law, but they are not
impermissible for that reason. Just a few examples of very legitimate inventions
that involve compliance with the law:
a. Improved cruise control deviceallows you to comply with the State speed
limit.
b. Improved machine to weigh trucks before departure to ensure they are not
overloaded per State law.
c. Improved airplane navigation system to ensure Federal FCC altitude limits, etc.
are observed.
d. Improved baby seat that meets baby seat requirements of State law.
e. Improved seat belt system that meets seat belt requirements of State/Federal
law.
g. Improved catalytic converter to more effectively meet State emissions requirements.
h. Improved car engine to meet State or Federal requirements on gas mileage
minimums.
From the legal standpoint, that is, under the Patent Law, all of the above types
of inventions are eligible for patents notwithstanding that they involve legal compliance.
From a policy standpoint, so long as a patent does not effectively prevent compliance with the lawi.e., it does not effectively preempt the law because the patent
is so broadthere should be no issue.
2. The issue, like nearly all of these kinds of these discussions, turns on the longstanding standards for what can be patented: something that is useful, new, and
not obvious. And, of course, the PTO must have or develop a good library of prior
art (documenting technology already in the public domain) to make that assessment. But that is nothing new here.
Thus, a patent that is so broad that it prevents compliance with the tax law
should never be granted because it cannot be new or non-obvious. In short, the existing filters in our Patent System will operate to prevent such a patent from being
granted.
3. The IRSs main issue is that the emblem of a patent may give consumers the
impression that the patented tax algorithm is legal and IRS-approved. Of course,
as a matter of law, a patent does not provide right to use, only a right to exclude.
By way of example, one can invent a very patentable nuclear reactor technology
based on cold fusion or a new drug that halts the aging process. If those inventions
actually work, the inventor will receive a patent that provides him/her exclusive
rights. But that does not mean that the law will permit the inventor to build the
reactor in his/her back yard or start marketing those new pills.
In sum, no patent provides Governmental approval to use the invention. Thus, the
issue that concerns the IRS, while it is a real issue of potential significance, is not
an issue of the substantive Patent Law. Rather, it is one of building consumer
awareness in a particular area where patents might be susceptible to being mis-

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00064

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6621

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

61
represented by the unethical. Building consumer awareness through advertising
and/or appropriate regulations by the PTO/IRS is the solution, not outlawing tax
strategy patents altogether.
4. Finally, the position taken by several witnesses that tax attorneys and wealthy
tax clients deserve special treatment so as not to be burdened with tax patents is
unpersuasive. If doctors and patients have to observe patent restrictions on new
medical techniques and new medicines that may have life-altering consequences, I
cannot fathom any moral, legal, or policy basis for why tax attorneys and their clients should be enjoy a special exemption from the Patent Laws that the medical
profession does not.
In closing, I thank the Subcommittee and its staff for allowing me to give my
views on this topic.

jcorcoran on PRODPC62 with MISCELLANEOUS

VerDate Aug 31 2005

01:47 Dec 21, 2006

Jkt 030450

PO 00000

Frm 00065

Fmt 6633

Sfmt 6011

E:\HR\OC\30450.XXX

30450

House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Hearing On Certain Expiring Tax Provisions
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Hearing On Certain Expiring Tax Provisions
1,240 pages
History of India 1757-1947 - 3rd Sem - BA - History - Bengali - 21072017
No ratings yet
History of India 1757-1947 - 3rd Sem - BA - History - Bengali - 21072017
156 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Tax Reform and Consumption-Based Tax Systems
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Tax Reform and Consumption-Based Tax Systems
317 pages
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2005
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2005
221 pages
Framework For Evaluating Certain Expiring Tax Provisions: Hearing
No ratings yet
Framework For Evaluating Certain Expiring Tax Provisions: Hearing
209 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Corporate Tax Shelters
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Corporate Tax Shelters
193 pages
HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE OPERATIONS, INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
No ratings yet
HOUSE HEARING, 109TH CONGRESS - REVIEW OF U.S. PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE OPERATIONS, INCLUDING ANALYSIS OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, INSPECTOR GENERAL, AND NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REPORTS
189 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - President's Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - President's Fiscal Year 2001 Budget
174 pages
Federal Income Tax Law Outline With Professor Wiseman
100% (4)
Federal Income Tax Law Outline With Professor Wiseman
173 pages
Ways and Means International Tax Reform Discussion Draft: Hearing
No ratings yet
Ways and Means International Tax Reform Discussion Draft: Hearing
168 pages
Taxes As Part of The Federal Budget: Hearing
No ratings yet
Taxes As Part of The Federal Budget: Hearing
168 pages
Small Business and Pass-Through Entity Tax Reform Discussion Draft
No ratings yet
Small Business and Pass-Through Entity Tax Reform Discussion Draft
170 pages
The Need For Comprehensive Tax Reform To Help American Companies Compete in The Global Market and Create Jobs For American Workers
No ratings yet
The Need For Comprehensive Tax Reform To Help American Companies Compete in The Global Market and Create Jobs For American Workers
168 pages
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On The Importance of Patent Reform On Small Business
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On The Importance of Patent Reform On Small Business
167 pages
Interaction of Tax and Financial Accounting On Tax Reform
No ratings yet
Interaction of Tax and Financial Accounting On Tax Reform
156 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - First in Series On Tax Code Simplification
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - First in Series On Tax Code Simplification
133 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - The Tax Code and The New Economy
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - The Tax Code and The New Economy
134 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Economic Models Available To The Joint Committee On Taxation For Analyzing Tax Reform Proposals
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Economic Models Available To The Joint Committee On Taxation For Analyzing Tax Reform Proposals
130 pages
Hearing On Energy and Tax Policy
No ratings yet
Hearing On Energy and Tax Policy
123 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How Business Tax Reform Can Encourage Job Creation
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How Business Tax Reform Can Encourage Job Creation
123 pages
Internet Tax Freedom Act: Internet Tax Moratorium: Hearing
No ratings yet
Internet Tax Freedom Act: Internet Tax Moratorium: Hearing
117 pages
Hearing: Patent Harmonization
No ratings yet
Hearing: Patent Harmonization
112 pages
Tax Incentives To Assist Distressed Communities: Hearing
No ratings yet
Tax Incentives To Assist Distressed Communities: Hearing
106 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How The Tax Code's Burdens On Individuals and Families Demonstrate The Need For Comprehensive Tax Reform
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How The Tax Code's Burdens On Individuals and Families Demonstrate The Need For Comprehensive Tax Reform
106 pages
Hearing: Select Tax Issues
No ratings yet
Hearing: Select Tax Issues
96 pages
Hearing: S Corporation Reforms
No ratings yet
Hearing: S Corporation Reforms
94 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Current U.S. International Tax Regime
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Current U.S. International Tax Regime
95 pages
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Tax-Exempt Charitable Organizations
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Tax-Exempt Charitable Organizations
267 pages
Full Committee Hearing On Modernizing The Tax Code: Updating The Internal Revenue Code To Help Small Businesses Stimulate The Economy
No ratings yet
Full Committee Hearing On Modernizing The Tax Code: Updating The Internal Revenue Code To Help Small Businesses Stimulate The Economy
98 pages
Tax Credits For Electricity Production From Renewable Sources
No ratings yet
Tax Credits For Electricity Production From Renewable Sources
92 pages
Second in Series On The Extraterritorial Income Regime: Hearing
No ratings yet
Second in Series On The Extraterritorial Income Regime: Hearing
92 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Small Businesses and Tax Reform
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - Small Businesses and Tax Reform
94 pages
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Hearing On The Use of
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Hearing On The Use of
88 pages
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Patent Act of 2005
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Patent Act of 2005
86 pages
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How An Improved U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Can Create Jobs
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 112TH Congress - How An Improved U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Can Create Jobs
89 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Tax Incentives For Land Use, Conservation, and Preservation
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Tax Incentives For Land Use, Conservation, and Preservation
83 pages
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - The Internal Revenue Service's Use of Private Debt Collection Companies To Collect Federal Income Taxes
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - The Internal Revenue Service's Use of Private Debt Collection Companies To Collect Federal Income Taxes
154 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Implementation of The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Implementation of The Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act
79 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Taxpayer Advocate Report and Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Taxpayer Advocate Report and Low-Income Taxpayer Clinics
78 pages
Hearing: Corporate Inversions
No ratings yet
Hearing: Corporate Inversions
78 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Internal Revenue Service Operations and Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Proposals
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Internal Revenue Service Operations and Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Proposals
78 pages
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Member Proposals On Energy Tax Incentives
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 110TH Congress - Member Proposals On Energy Tax Incentives
79 pages
Work Opportunity Tax Credit: Hearing
No ratings yet
Work Opportunity Tax Credit: Hearing
76 pages
Internal Revenue Service Operations and The Tax Gap: Hearing
No ratings yet
Internal Revenue Service Operations and The Tax Gap: Hearing
75 pages
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Patent Quality Enhancement in The Information-Based Economy
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 109TH Congress - Patent Quality Enhancement in The Information-Based Economy
72 pages
System Safety Engineering and Management Second Edition
No ratings yet
System Safety Engineering and Management Second Edition
371 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Subcommittee On Finance and Tax Hearing On How The Complexity of The Tax Code Hinders Small Businesses
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Subcommittee On Finance and Tax Hearing On How The Complexity of The Tax Code Hinders Small Businesses
72 pages
Full Committee Hearing On Expiring Tax Incentives: Examining Their Importance For Small Businesses On The Road To An Economic Recovery
No ratings yet
Full Committee Hearing On Expiring Tax Incentives: Examining Their Importance For Small Businesses On The Road To An Economic Recovery
71 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - First in Series On The Extraterritorial Income Regime
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - First in Series On The Extraterritorial Income Regime
66 pages
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Tax Incentives For Renewal
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 107TH Congress - Tax Incentives For Renewal
67 pages
Simplification of The Tax System: Hearing
No ratings yet
Simplification of The Tax System: Hearing
57 pages
Hearing Committee On Ways and Means House of Representatives
No ratings yet
Hearing Committee On Ways and Means House of Representatives
52 pages
House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Free Electronic Filing and National Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 108TH Congress - Free Electronic Filing and National Taxpayer Advocate Annual Report
50 pages
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Repeal of The Installment Method of Accounting For Accrual Basis Taxpayers
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 106TH Congress - Repeal of The Installment Method of Accounting For Accrual Basis Taxpayers
50 pages
Modeling The Economic Effect of Changes in Tax Policy: Hearing
No ratings yet
Modeling The Economic Effect of Changes in Tax Policy: Hearing
48 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Irs Oversight: Are Tax Compliance Costs Slowing Down The Economic Recovery?
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Irs Oversight: Are Tax Compliance Costs Slowing Down The Economic Recovery?
51 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Entrepreneurs and Tax Day: How Irs Policies and Procedures Impact Small Businesses
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Entrepreneurs and Tax Day: How Irs Policies and Procedures Impact Small Businesses
49 pages
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Tax Initiatives That Promote Small Business Growth
No ratings yet
House Hearing, 111TH Congress - Full Committee Hearing On Tax Initiatives That Promote Small Business Growth
83 pages
US Internal Revenue Service: 11943601
No ratings yet
US Internal Revenue Service: 11943601
7 pages
Complexity in Administration of Federal Tax Laws: Hearing
No ratings yet
Complexity in Administration of Federal Tax Laws: Hearing
20 pages
InductiveReasoningTest4 Questions
100% (1)
InductiveReasoningTest4 Questions
31 pages
Ipl SGN Salao 1
No ratings yet
Ipl SGN Salao 1
15 pages
United States v. Kieffer, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kieffer, 10th Cir. (2017)
20 pages
United States v. Roberson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Roberson, 10th Cir. (2017)
50 pages
4810648-Through The Kaleidoscope
No ratings yet
4810648-Through The Kaleidoscope
8 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
100% (1)
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
10 pages
Paradice Lost, Paradice Regained-Homo Faber and The Makings of A New Beginning in Oryx and Crake PDF
No ratings yet
Paradice Lost, Paradice Regained-Homo Faber and The Makings of A New Beginning in Oryx and Crake PDF
26 pages
Map of Noida
No ratings yet
Map of Noida
38 pages
D361A - User Guide v1.2
No ratings yet
D361A - User Guide v1.2
17 pages
Tresors Aux Pics Gris Solo Version
No ratings yet
Tresors Aux Pics Gris Solo Version
15 pages
Assignment 3
0% (1)
Assignment 3
2 pages
COPYRIGHT FRANCE ® U3S61B7 - Logo - Logan's Corporation LTD
No ratings yet
COPYRIGHT FRANCE ® U3S61B7 - Logo - Logan's Corporation LTD
1 page
Ghhhyyyy
No ratings yet
Ghhhyyyy
2 pages
International Sales v. THe Container Store - Complaint
No ratings yet
International Sales v. THe Container Store - Complaint
23 pages
Ecolab Et. Al. v. Spartan Chemical Company
No ratings yet
Ecolab Et. Al. v. Spartan Chemical Company
11 pages
SN54LS169B, SN54S169 SN74LS169B, SN74S169 Synchronous 4-Bit Up/Down Binary Counters
No ratings yet
SN54LS169B, SN54S169 SN74LS169B, SN74S169 Synchronous 4-Bit Up/Down Binary Counters
12 pages
Ch05 Website Design and Development 100 Questions To Ask Before Building A Website 1
No ratings yet
Ch05 Website Design and Development 100 Questions To Ask Before Building A Website 1
34 pages
M2
No ratings yet
M2
13 pages
Industrl Design
No ratings yet
Industrl Design
27 pages
Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Harte v. Board Comm'rs Cnty of Johnson, 10th Cir. (2017)
100 pages
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
27 pages
Coyle v. Jackson, 10th Cir. (2017)
100% (1)
Coyle v. Jackson, 10th Cir. (2017)
7 pages
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Olden, 10th Cir. (2017)
4 pages
Abhishek Negi
No ratings yet
Abhishek Negi
10 pages
May The Road Rise Up To Meet You - BB Major - MN0027353 - U5
No ratings yet
May The Road Rise Up To Meet You - BB Major - MN0027353 - U5
4 pages
Summary Chapter 6 ComEthics
No ratings yet
Summary Chapter 6 ComEthics
7 pages
USD618677
No ratings yet
USD618677
6 pages
Ross County Jail Roster
No ratings yet
Ross County Jail Roster
4 pages
United States v. Kearn, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kearn, 10th Cir. (2017)
25 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
100% (1)
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
14 pages
J-AIM Publishing Policies
No ratings yet
J-AIM Publishing Policies
4 pages
All Elements Rule vs. Doctrine of Equivalence
No ratings yet
All Elements Rule vs. Doctrine of Equivalence
4 pages
United States v. Windom, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Windom, 10th Cir. (2017)
25 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
No ratings yet
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
24 pages
Pecha v. Lake, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Pecha v. Lake, 10th Cir. (2017)
25 pages
Baseball Parks Word Search
No ratings yet
Baseball Parks Word Search
3 pages
Minor Blues Variation 2: 12 Bar Derived From "Straight Minor" and "Arppegiate The Blues"
No ratings yet
Minor Blues Variation 2: 12 Bar Derived From "Straight Minor" and "Arppegiate The Blues"
2 pages
List of Words
No ratings yet
List of Words
0 pages
Northern New Mexicans v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Northern New Mexicans v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
10 pages
Manual de Usuario Acer X118H (64 Páginas)
No ratings yet
Manual de Usuario Acer X118H (64 Páginas)
2 pages
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Consolidation Coal Company v. OWCP, 10th Cir. (2017)
22 pages
United States v. Muhtorov, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Muhtorov, 10th Cir. (2017)
15 pages
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
No ratings yet
Publish United States Court of Appeals For The Tenth Circuit
17 pages
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
City of Albuquerque v. Soto Enterprises, 10th Cir. (2017)
21 pages
United States v. Garcia-Damian, 10th Cir. (2017)
100% (1)
United States v. Garcia-Damian, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
Patent File Procedure BD
No ratings yet
Patent File Procedure BD
2 pages
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Apodaca v. Raemisch, 10th Cir. (2017)
15 pages
Payn v. Kelley, 10th Cir. (2017)
50% (2)
Payn v. Kelley, 10th Cir. (2017)
8 pages
Coburn v. Wilkinson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Coburn v. Wilkinson, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
NM Off-Hwy Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
NM Off-Hwy Vehicle Alliance v. U.S. Forest Service, 10th Cir. (2017)
9 pages
United States v. Kundo, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Kundo, 10th Cir. (2017)
7 pages
Robles v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Robles v. United States, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
Pledger v. Russell, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Pledger v. Russell, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Brown v. Shoe, 10th Cir. (2017)
6 pages
United States v. Voog, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Voog, 10th Cir. (2017)
5 pages
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Magnan, 10th Cir. (2017)
4 pages
United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
United States v. Henderson, 10th Cir. (2017)
2 pages
Greene v. Tennessee Board, 10th Cir. (2017)
No ratings yet
Greene v. Tennessee Board, 10th Cir. (2017)
2 pages
How to Make Effective Legislative Proposals: Trinidad and Tobago Legislative Process
From Everand
How to Make Effective Legislative Proposals: Trinidad and Tobago Legislative Process
Bilika H. Simamba
No ratings yet
How to Make Effective Legislative Proposals: Cayman Islands Legislative Process
From Everand
How to Make Effective Legislative Proposals: Cayman Islands Legislative Process
Bilika H. Simamba
No ratings yet