Nominations of James R. Ives, Rose E. Jenkins, Adam B. Landy, and Kashi Way (S. Hrg. 118-808)
Summary
Hearing record S. Hrg. 118–808 before the Committee on Finance, United States Senate, on June 4, 2024, on the nominations of James R. Ives to be Inspector General, Department of the Treasury, and of Rose E. Jenkins, Adam B. Landy and Kashi Way to be judges of the United States Tax Court. Opening statements are listed for Chairman Ron Wyden and Senator Mike Crapo, and Representative Clyburn of South Carolina appears as a congressional witness. The record contains each nominee's testimony and prepared statement, and for Mr. Ives biographical information and responses to questions from committee members. The closing remarks congratulate all four nominees.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Cite this document
“Nominations of James R. Ives, Rose E. Jenkins, Adam B. Landy, and Kashi Way (S. Hrg. 118-808).”
Original at www.govinfo.gov. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/chrg-118shrg64301-nominations-of-james-r-ives-to-be-inspector-general-c648fe7d61/
, SHA-256 0940687b7beb8e965f01596606468991a2825a0e2c08e28d2000ed12bef40d95.Full text
S. HRG. 118–808
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES R. IVES, ROSE E.
JENKINS, ADAM B. LANDY, AND KASHI WAY
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
ON THE
NOMINATIONS OF
JAMES R. IVES, TO BE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; ROSE E. JENKINS, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE UNITED
STATES TAX COURT; ADAM B. LANDY, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT; AND KASHI WAY, TO BE A JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
JUNE 4, 2024
(
Printed for the use of the Committee on Finance
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
64–301—PDF WASHINGTON : 2026
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
RON WYDEN, Oregon, Chairman
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey JOHN CORNYN, Texas
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN THUNE, South Dakota
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland TIM SCOTT, South Carolina
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana
MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania STEVE DAINES, Montana
MARK R. WARNER, Virginia TODD YOUNG, Indiana
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
ELIZABETH WARREN, Massachusetts MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOSHUA SHEINKMAN, Staff Director
GREGG RICHARD, Republican Staff Director
(II)
CONTENTS
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Wyden, Hon. Ron, a U.S. Senator from Oregon, chairman, Committee on
Finance .................................................................................................................. 1
Crapo, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from Idaho ...................................................... 3
CONGRESSIONAL WITNESS
Clyburn, Hon. James E., a U.S. Representative from South Carolina ............... 6
ADMINISTRATION NOMINEES
Ives, James R., nominated to be Inspector General, Department of the Treas-
ury, Washington, DC ........................................................................................... 4
Jenkins, Rose E., nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court,
Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 7
Landy, Adam B., nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court,
Washington, DC ................................................................................................... 8
Way, Kashi, nominated to be a judge of the United States Tax Court, Wash-
ington, DC ............................................................................................................. 9
ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL
Clyburn, Hon. James E.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21
Crapo, Hon. Mike:
Opening statement ........................................................................................... 3
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21
Ives, James R.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 4
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22
Biographical information ................................................................................. 23
Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 28
Jenkins, Rose E.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 7
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38
Biographical information ................................................................................. 39
Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 48
Landy, Adam B.:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 50
Biographical information ................................................................................. 51
Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 59
Warren, Hon. Elizabeth:
Letter to Richard K. Delmar from Senator Warren and Representative
Jayapal, May 10, 2024 .................................................................................. 61
Way, Kashi:
Testimony .......................................................................................................... 9
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62
Biographical information ................................................................................. 63
Responses to questions from committee members ......................................... 67
Wyden, Hon. Ron:
Opening statement ........................................................................................... 1
Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 69
(III)
NOMINATIONS OF JAMES R. IVES, TO BE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY; ROSE E. JENKINS, TO BE A
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT;
ADAM B. LANDY, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT; AND KASHI
WAY, TO BE A JUDGE OF THE
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
TUESDAY, JUNE 4, 2024
U.S. SENATE,
COMMITTEE ON FINANCE,
Washington, DC.
The hearing was convened, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
Room SD–215, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Ron Wyden
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cortez Masto, Warren, Crapo, Grassley,
Thune, Johnson, and Blackburn.
Also present: Democratic staff: Jonathan Goldman, Senior Tax
Counsel, International; Eric LoPresti, Detailee; Joshua Sheinkman,
Staff Director; Tiffany Smith, Deputy Staff Director and Chief
Counsel; and Ryder Tobin, Senior Investigative Counsel and Nomi-
nations Advisor. Republican Staff: Courtney Connell, Chief Tax
Counsel; Andrew Dell’Orto, Policy Advisor; Gregg Richard, Staff Di-
rector; and James Williams, Tax and Economic Policy Advisor.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM OREGON, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON FINANCE
The CHAIRMAN. The Finance Committee will come to order.
Today, the committee meets to discuss four nominations. James
Ives has been nominated to serve as Inspector General of the De-
partment of the Treasury; and Rose Jenkins, Adam Landy, and
Kashi Way are all nominated to serve as judges of the United
States Tax Court. I will begin with the Treasury Inspector General.
Inspectors General perform an essential oversight role across the
government. At the Treasury, they oversee a department with a
budget of billions of dollars and immense influence over the U.S.
and global economy. They do important work rooting out waste,
fraud, and abuse.
There has not been a confirmed Treasury Inspector General for
nearly 5 years. It is critical that the next Inspector General is un-
daunted by political pressure and unafraid to confront big issues,
even when it is unpopular.
(1)
2
I am a firm believer that tough oversight results in good govern-
ment. Mr. Ives brings oversight experience from all over the Fed-
eral Government to his nomination. He currently serves as the
Principal Deputy Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative
Service, which is the criminal investigative arm of the Department
of Defense’s Office of Inspector General. He has also served within
the Inspector General offices at NASA and the Government Pub-
lishing Office.
He was a special agent with the State Department’s Diplomatic
Security Service and a reserve special agent with the U.S. Coast
Guard Investigative Service. When you add it all up, he has more
than 3 decades of experience in oversight and law enforcement, and
that will be highly valuable in the job as Treasury Inspector Gen-
eral.
Next up we will hear from our three nominees for the Tax Court.
The U.S. Tax Court is the judicial backbone of the Federal tax
code. It is the best opportunity Americans have to dispute tax bills
before they have to pay. It keeps them from getting stuck in slow-
moving courts when they have a tax issue that just needs resolu-
tion.
So, this committee is thankful to have three nominees willing to
take on an important job, all of whom bring a blend of public and
private experience to their nominations. Rose Jenkins brings 15
years of experience in tax law to her nomination. She has par-
ticular expertise in international tax law and administrative issues.
She is currently an attorney in the Office of Associate Chief Coun-
sel for Procedure and Administration.
It is her second go-round with the IRS Chief Counsel. She pre-
viously served in the international office as well. She has valuable
experience in the private sector, and she has been at NYU’s Tax
Law Center.
Adam Landy has been a special trial judge on the Tax Court
since 2021. He too has several years of experience at the Office of
the IRS Chief Counsel, serving in Baltimore and San Francisco, as
well as in the private sector.
Finally, Kashi Way is a Senior Legislative Counsel with the staff
of the Joint Committee on Taxation. At the Joint Committee, Mr.
Way’s primary focus is on energy, tax issues, and research and de-
velopment, but his background covers much more.
In 18 years at the Joint Committee on Taxation, he has had a
big impact on major bills, including the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Amer-
ican Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of
2017, and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.
I think I can fairly speak for the entire committee, Mr. Way, that
we are big fans of the staff at the Joint Committee on Taxation.
We simply could not do our jobs without your professionalism and
that of your colleagues. You do not get a whole lot of recognition
there on the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, but you
have had a very good base of support from colleagues on both sides
of this committee, and please convey that to the Joint Committee.
You will make an excellent Tax Court judge, but this committee
will be sorry to lose your counsel up here on Capitol Hill.
3
I want to thank and congratulate all four of our excellent nomi-
nees, and thank them for joining the committee this morning. I
think we are going to have a good discussion.
Senator Crapo?
[The prepared statement of Chairman Wyden appears in the ap-
pendix.]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Senator CRAPO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and wel-
come to our four nominees: Mr. Ives, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Landy, and
Mr. Way. As Chairman Wyden has just explained, today we will
first hear from James Ives, who is nominated to serve as Inspector
General of the Treasury Department.
This position is responsible for keeping both the Treasury Sec-
retary and Congress fully and currently informed about the prob-
lems and deficiencies relating to the administration of the Treasury
Department programs and their operations, including the necessity
for corrective action.
Mr. Ives, given your depth of experience in the Inspector General
community, you are undoubtedly aware of the importance of over-
sight and accountability within the executive branch. If confirmed,
it will be your duty to lead efforts to investigate criminal activity
and employee misconduct at Treasury’s bureaus; combat waste,
fraud, and abuse; and detect and deter fraud tied to pandemic-
related legislation and other Treasury operations.
I will be counting on an effective Inspector General to monitor
these issues and ensure a professional level of work at the IG’s of-
fice.
Now, moving to the other three nominees under consideration
today: Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Landy, and Mr. Way, who have been nomi-
nated to the United States Tax Court. The Tax Court is committed
to providing taxpayers, most of whom are self-represented, with a
reasonable opportunity to challenge the IRS with as little inconven-
ience and expense as practicable.
If taxpayers have a disagreement with the IRS, the Tax Court
serves as a venue to get a fair, impartial, and efficient hearing. The
Tax Court plays a central role in the maintenance of our tax laws,
the complexity of which requires highly skilled judges.
It is the Finance Committee’s responsibility to ensure that judges
nominated to serve on the Tax Court are prepared to tackle these
complex issues. These positions are especially important to uphold
the public trust in the tax system, which the American taxpayers
expect and deserve.
I thank each of our nominees for your dedication to our country,
and I look forward to hearing your testimony today.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Crapo appears in the appen-
dix.]
The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague.
And I did a pretty expansive introduction earlier, but suffice it
to say that Mr. Ives has decades of experience in oversight and law
enforcement. Ms. Jenkins has 15 years of experience in inter-
national tax law and administrative issues. Mr. Way has 18 years
4
of experience working at the Joint Committee on Taxation. And
what we are going to do is await Congressman Clyburn, who will
give a formal introduction to Mr. Landy.
I think what we will do is, we will just start with you, Mr. Ives.
And at some point, I would say to our witnesses, when Mr. Clyburn
arrives, we will go to him to introduce Mr. Landy and then con-
tinue with our proceedings.
So, why don’t you make your opening statement, Mr. Ives? And
we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF JAMES R. IVES, NOMINATED TO BE INSPEC-
TOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, WASH-
INGTON, DC
Mr. IVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the
committee, I am honored to have been nominated to serve as In-
spector General of the Department of the Treasury. If confirmed,
I look forward to working closely with this committee in fulfilling
the Office of Inspector General’s vital oversight role.
I would like to recognize my wife Jennifer and our son Jordan
for their continued support throughout this process. I also express
my appreciation to my colleagues at the Department of Defense’s
Office of Inspector General for their encouragement, profession-
alism, and accomplishments overseeing our Nation’s largest and
most complex government institution.
I have dedicated my entire adult life to public service. Within 2
months of graduating college, I accepted an entry-level position
with the Department of Justice. Just over a year later, I trans-
ferred to DoD IG, where I served as a special agent with their law
enforcement arm, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service, for
over 10 years.
I quickly came to appreciate the critical importance of the In-
spector General role, seeing firsthand how well-executed IG initia-
tives can detect and deter fraud and abuse, and return millions of
dollars of ill-gotten gains to the government. My work entailed un-
covering procurement fraud, health-care fraud, cybercrimes, and di-
version of sensitive military technology, resulting in successful
criminal prosecutions and civil penalties and fines.
By way of example, I participated in an exhaustive 5-year inves-
tigation that resulted in the largest health-care fraud recovery in
our Nation’s history at the time. In 2001, my life changed dramati-
cally when I was detailed to New York City to assist with the gov-
ernment’s investigation and recovery efforts following the Sep-
tember 11th terrorist attacks.
Subsequent to the attacks, defending the country against addi-
tional terrorist events became DoD’s top priority. I was then asked
to serve as DoD IG’s full-time representative to the FBI’s Joint Ter-
rorism Task Force upon returning home, where I conducted
counterterrorism investigations on a full-time basis from 2001
through 2004. This experience taught me the value of interagency
collaboration, and the importance of ensuring OIG priorities align
with our Nation’s broader objectives.
In 2004, I was promoted into a DoD IG headquarters position.
Over the next several years, I held a variety of leadership positions
5
at DoD IG, culminating in my appointment to the Senior Executive
Service in 2009. Throughout this period, I developed a keen appre-
ciation for the extent to which an Inspector General can foster posi-
tive change by promoting efficiency within their respective agency.
After serving for over 2 decades at DoD, I sought to diversify my
portfolio and joined the National Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
tration’s OIG, where I led the Office of Investigations for approxi-
mately 6 years. While serving at NASA, I continued to engage in
focused and objective oversight by overseeing investigations involv-
ing fraud, corruption, and other criminal activity.
I was also afforded the opportunity to serve as the Acting Inspec-
tor General of the Government Publishing Office in early 2019,
while the organization was seeking a new permanent Inspector
General. In 2021, I experienced a homecoming of sorts when I re-
turned to DoD IG. I initially served as the organization’s Deputy
Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations before re-
turning to DCIS, where I currently serve as Principal Deputy Di-
rector.
Since returning to DCIS, a primary focus has been ensuring we
provide timely oversight of DoD’s Ukraine response efforts. I am
extremely proud of the extent to which the entire DoD IG work-
force has embraced this critical mission. Having served as a mem-
ber of the IG community for over 30 years, I am fully aware that
the role of Inspector General can be a challenging one. IGs are
unique in that they report to both the department they oversee and
Congress.
Successful IGs learn to master the art of respectfully and profes-
sionally engaging agency and congressional leaders, while remain-
ing independent, objective, and nonpartisan. I believe my experi-
ence has shown that I am capable of ensuring that Treasury De-
partment’s OIG embraces these tenets; and if confirmed, I will con-
tinue to engage in the same aggressive, objective oversight that I
have consistently promoted throughout my entire career.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I would be happy to
answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ives appears in the appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ives.
We have had the good fortune to be able to have Congressman
Clyburn here. He has been so helpful on many of this committee’s
issues. I cannot even remember how many times we have talked
about Medicaid, for example—an area the Congressman has great
interest in.
Mr. Landy, you are a lucky fellow to have Congressman Clyburn
introduce you. After basketball games, my mother would always
say, ‘‘Dear, I hope you’re running with the right crowd tonight.’’ If
you have Congressman Clyburn, you are, Mr. Landy, running with
the right crowd. So, Congressman Clyburn, why don’t you go ahead
and introduce Mr. Landy?
Then we will go back to our order of witnesses. So my nominees
are clear, we will go to Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Landy, and Mr. Way.
Please go ahead, Congressman Clyburn.
6
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN,
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Representative CLYBURN. Well, thank you very much, Chairman
Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, other members of the committee.
Thank you for granting me the opportunity to introduce and speak
in support of Adam Landy’s nomination to the United States Tax
Court.
Adam hails from the big city of Aiken, SC. Although Aiken is not
in my congressional district——
The CHAIRMAN. How many people live in Aiken?
Representative CLYBURN. Well, it would be easy to count, but a
little more time will be required than we have here today. Al-
though Aiken is not in my congressional district, Adam graduated
from the University of South Carolina and the University of South
Carolina Law School, both of which are in the district I proudly
represent here in this august body.
Adam has been associated with members of the Clyburn family
for most of his life. He attended high school and law school with
a cousin, Courtney Clyburn Pope, now a South Carolina State cir-
cuit judge. Courtney’s mother, Mrs. Beverly Clyburn—wife of my
first cousin William—is the second most senior member in the
South Carolina House of Representatives. While she was a high
school guidance counselor, I think she did a pretty good job guiding
him along the way.
Now, my father drilled into me from childhood that experience is
the best teacher, and that certainly is true with Adam. After an en-
counter, which resulted in a tax preparer’s fees absorbing nearly all
of his tax refund for filing a simple 1040–EZ, Adam vowed to never
let that happen again.
As an attorney for the Internal Revenue Service, Adam has ar-
gued before the Tax Court, and has served as a special trial judge
in the same venue. He remains connected to his colleagues through
his membership and service in the American and National Bar As-
sociations.
He learned how to prepare his own returns and became a pre-
parer for his friends. As a law student at USC, Adam developed a
love for the tax code and immersed himself in the intricacy of tax
law. Adam began working with the Volunteer Income Tax Assist-
ance program, where he provided vital assistance to people who
desperately needed their refunds to make ends meet, as we often
say in the southern culture.
He continued his work after graduation and clerked on the State
Circuit Court for Judge Julie Michelle Childs, now on the pres-
tigious United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
Adam has a diversity of experience in the profession that makes
him an ideal candidate. I am pleased to be here today to speak on
his behalf, and thank you so much for allowing me to help Adam
continue to make South Carolina and our citizenry proud.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Representative Clyburn appears in
the appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. We are in turn, Congressman, very honored to
have you here. And, Mr. Landy, I think you have basically been de-
scribed as a human version of Direct File, because that is some
7
send-off. And, Congressman, you are welcome to stay through our
whole proceedings. I know you have a very busy schedule and cal-
endar, but you are always welcome here, and I appreciate——
Representative CLYBURN. I thank you very, very much, and
thanks to the entire committee for indulging me for these few mo-
ments.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Representative CLYBURN. By the time I see you again, Mr. Chair-
man, I will have an accurate count on how many people are in
Aiken.
The CHAIRMAN. Great; done.
Representative CLYBURN. Thank you. Thank you so much.
The CHAIRMAN. We send you off. Thank you, Congressman.
Okay; Ms. Jenkins. That is a hard job following Congressman
Clyburn.
Ms. JENKINS. It is a hard job, yes.
STATEMENT OF ROSE E. JENKINS, NOMINATED TO BE A
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. JENKINS. Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member
Crapo, and other members of the Finance Committee. Thank you
for holding this hearing to consider my nomination to serve on the
United States Tax Court. I am also grateful to the committee staff
for their efforts throughout this process.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today, accompanied by
my parents Antonio Jenkins-Lara and Rose Jenkins, and my hus-
band Daniel Horner, whose encouragement and support have been
unwavering. I would also like to thank my many mentors and other
colleagues throughout my career, who have taught and challenged
me to be the best tax attorney that I can be, and provided me the
opportunities that have led to me being here today.
I am grateful to the President for nominating me and providing
me the chance, if confirmed, to serve the tax system, of which I
have been a part my entire career. I have had a variety of roles
in the tax system, and have always been guided by a drive to make
sense of the tax laws, and apply them in a principled manner befit-
ting our system of voluntary tax compliance.
I have worked with taxpayers struggling to get their arms
around the tax consequences of messy facts that often came about
as a result of simply living their lives and operating their busi-
nesses. And I have worked with dedicated public servants who
work zealously to ensure that not only the letter, but also the spirit
of the law, is followed.
Ultimately, the complexity of the tax laws, the broad and uncer-
tain scope of facts that may be relevant to any particular question,
and the inherent tension between the IRS and taxpayers, mean
that there may be many cases in which they do not see eye to eye.
That makes the mission of the Tax Court so critical. By providing
a national forum for the expeditious resolution of disputes based on
a careful consideration of the merits of each case, it instills con-
fidence in taxpayers that they will receive a fair hearing. The Tax
Court’s efforts to ensure a uniform interpretation of the code pro-
vide certainty and stability that benefits not only the taxpayers
8
that appear before it, but all stakeholders in the tax system at
large.
In addition to allowing me to develop a deep understanding of
particular areas of tax law, my career has given me an apprecia-
tion of the differing perspectives, not only between the government
and taxpayers, but also among different types of taxpayers. That
understanding, as well as the experience engaging the collabo-
rative, analytical, and decision-making processes entailed, will ben-
efit me as a member of the Tax Court, working collegially to ensure
uniform application of the law.
More broadly, my experiences throughout my career have in-
stilled in me a propensity for close, careful listening and thorough,
open-minded analysis and discussion, which are critical to fair and
impartial judgment. If confirmed, I commit to maintaining these
principles in service of the Tax Court’s critical mission.
I look forward to the committee’s questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jenkins appears in the appen-
dix.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Landy?
STATEMENT OF ADAM B. LANDY, NOMINATED TO BE A JUDGE
OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. LANDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman
Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished members of the
Finance Committee. Thank you for scheduling this hearing and
processing my nomination. Thank you to President Biden for nomi-
nating me to serve as a judge on the United States Tax Court. I
am humbled and honored by the opportunity to continue to serve
on the Court if I am fortunate to be confirmed.
Thank you to Congressman Jim Clyburn for his introduction this
morning, and to him and his staff for their support throughout this
process. As native South Carolinians, my family and I are grateful
to the Congressman for his service to this Nation and our beloved
home State.
I acknowledge and thank my wife Courtney, who is here this
morning, as she is my best friend, my fiercest defender, and ulti-
mate cheerleader. My sons Brooks and Miles, whom I love so much,
are here today. Because of them, I strive to be the best version of
myself daily.
My father Robert is watching remotely this morning, and I thank
him for modeling hard work and tenacity. I honor the memory of
my mother Darlean, a former public school educator, who instilled
in me the importance of obtaining an education and being there for
people in their time of need. Whether it was taking my siblings and
me with her to deliver meals through the Meals on Wheels pro-
gram, or encouraging me to become involved with the United Way
of the Midlands, she made sure we understood the duty to give
back to our community and to serve others.
To my siblings Erica, Marcus, and Jason, along with extended
family members, my mother- and father-in-law Ricardo and Diane
Wingate, my church family and friends who are watching remotely,
thank you for your love, prayers, and support.
9
Finally, I would like to thank the Chief Judge of the United
States Tax Court; my fellow judicial officers on the court; Anita
Rizek, Legislative Counsel for the Court; and my former super-
visors Erik Doerring, Nancy Gilmore, and Thomas Mackinson, for
their support during the public phase of this nomination process.
As a law student and young lawyer, I clerked for Judge J.
Michelle Childs, now, as the Congressman said, a circuit judge for
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but then a
judge on the South Carolina Circuit Court. I learned from Judge
Childs the importance of evaluating the parties’ arguments thor-
oughly, conducting comprehensive research to provide some legal
advice, and administering justice with a calm temperament. This
experience is why I desire to become a judge.
As a special trial judge, I have strived daily to implement these
traits of proper judicial temperament and skill to competently serve
the public. Since concluding my legal education, I represented tax-
payers and the IRS before the Tax Court.
As a tax lawyer, I acquired an understanding of the challenges
taxpayers and the IRS face, while developing solid listening and
communication skills, strong research and writing skills, and good
judgment. As a special trial judge, I demonstrate traits of proper
judicial temperament and skill in conducting motions hearings and
trials, and resolving tax disputes through written orders and pub-
lished opinions.
While the cases I will hear as a Tax Court judge, if I’m fortunate
to be confirmed, will differ in the content and complexity from my
current role, I will bring my current and prior professional experi-
ences to this new role in adjudicating tax disputes in an impartial
and expeditious manner.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, members of the com-
mittee, thank you for your consideration. I am happy to answer
any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Landy appears in the appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Landy. And let the
record also show that Mr. Landy’s children have been perfectly be-
haved.
Mr. LANDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you.
Mr. Way, welcome.
STATEMENT OF KASHI WAY, NOMINATED TO BE A JUDGE OF
THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. WAY. Thank you. Good morning. Chairman Wyden, Ranking
Member Crapo, and members of the Finance Committee, thank you
for holding this hearing to consider my nomination to serve as a
judge on the United States Tax Court. I am honored to have been
nominated by the President, and I greatly appreciate the oppor-
tunity to be here today. Thank you also to the committee staff for
their assistance throughout this process.
I am joined this morning by my wife Diane and my sons Ian and
Evan, whose love and support have been a continuous source of
strength for me. I am also joined by my 81 year-old mother, who
flew in from California. She raised me as a single mom on a sec-
retary’s salary before going to night school to become a computer
10
programmer. Without her as a role model, I certainly would not be
here today. I also want to acknowledge Tom Barthold, my boss, and
Chief of Staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. Finally, I am
grateful for the numerous friends and colleagues who are in attend-
ance or watching virtually.
For more than 19 years, I have been serving the Congress on the
staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. During that time, I have
worked under multiple chairmen from both parties, and my goal
has always been to provide the best nonpartisan advice possible. As
you all know, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes into
every tax bill that comes up for a vote. The tax legislative process
is one that requires thoughtfulness, patience, and dedication. It has
truly been an honor and a privilege to help you prepare your legis-
lation and advance your policies over these many years.
As anyone who has filed a tax return knows, our tax system is
complicated and can frustrate even well-intentioned taxpayers. The
Tax Court affords taxpayers a crucial forum for resolving civil dis-
putes with the IRS. It is my desire to contribute to the fairness of
the tax system by helping to resolve these disputes in a manner
that ensures taxpayers have the opportunity to be heard and pay
no more than what is required under the law.
If I am confirmed, I will take the skills I have learned on the
Joint Committee staff to serve the country in a different capacity.
In particular, I will continue to work thoughtfully, patiently, and
with dedication, to ensure fairness in the tax system. If confirmed
as a judge, I promise to impartially apply the law to the facts be-
fore me in the resolution of tax disputes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Way appears in the appendix.]
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Now, I think the nominees know we have some obligatory ques-
tions that we have to ask each of you. First, is there anything that
you are aware of in your background that might present a conflict
of interest with the duties of the office to which you have been
nominated?
Mr. IVES. No.
Ms. JENKINS. No.
Mr. LANDY. No, Senator.
Mr. WAY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Second, do you know of any reason, personal or
otherwise, that would in any way prevent you from fully and hon-
orably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you
have been nominated?
Mr. IVES. No.
Ms. JENKINS. No.
Mr. LANDY. No.
Mr. WAY. No.
The CHAIRMAN. Third, do you agree without reservation to re-
spond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any
duly constituted committee of the Congress if you are confirmed?
Mr. IVES. I do agree.
Ms. JENKINS. Yes.
Mr. LANDY. Yes.
11
Mr. WAY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Finally, do you commit to provide a prompt re-
sponse in writing to any questions addressed to you by any Senator
of the committee?
Mr. IVES. Yes.
Ms. JENKINS. Yes.
Mr. LANDY. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. WAY. Yes.
The CHAIRMAN. Okay; great. Thank you all, and let us go now
to questions.
Let me start with you, Mr. Ives. You are certainly well qualified,
and I look at your experience in oversight and so many issues, and
they have been on high-profile matters.
There is one area—and I think we have indicated this to you—
where we need reassurance before advancing your nomination.
That is, we ask a lot of our Inspectors General, and particularly the
Treasury Office of Inspector General. They do great work at the di-
rection of the Congress, ferreting out waste, fraud, and abuse in
programs that are critical to our country.
And the office does sterling work in that regard, and your re-
sume makes me believe that you are well equipped to lead the of-
fice on these matters. Unfortunately, when it comes to issues of
wrongdoing, corruption, conflicts of interest, or abuse of power
among officials at the Treasury Department, time and again we
have seen the Office of Inspector General pull its punches. Inves-
tigations are not thorough or stop just short of making tough deci-
sions. It has been—and I want to be clear about it—disappointing,
and it is unacceptable. So my question to you, Mr. Ives, is, when
it comes to difficult, high-profile issues, how can you assure the Fi-
nance Committee this morning that you will be a tough investi-
gator and speak truth to power, and when have you done so in the
past?
Mr. IVES. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. The short
answer is, I have established a very proven track record. Over the
past 30 years, I have never shied away from investigations that
could potentially require the delivery of very bad news to the De-
partment or the Congress. And many of those investigations could,
quite frankly, have involved senior officials. Case in point, just for
an example: just last week, an investigation involving a very senior
military official, now a former military official who has been
charged with bribery, was reported in media circles, and my orga-
nization played a very critical role in that investigation.
Obviously, that type of investigation does not display the Depart-
ment in a favorable light. But I have never shied away from work
that may require me to speak truth to power. It comes with the
territory, and frankly an IG would be wholly ineffective if he or she
were unwilling to do so.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And you can be certain that the Sen-
ators on both sides of the dais are going to follow this up and keep
that commitment that you have made today in place. The stakes
are just so high. Thank you for your answer.
All right; let us go now to our Tax Court nominees. It is my view
that the three of you are very qualified individuals, certainly cumu-
latively, you have decades of experience. I would be interested—we
12
can just go for the three of you—Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Landy, Mr.
Way—down the table.
I would be interested in what past experiences are going to most
shape your time on the Tax Court?
Ms. Jenkins?
Ms. JENKINS. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman. My ex-
perience, particularly working on guidance and commenting on
guidance from outside of the IRS, I think has been most relevant
to my future work, in that it has taught me the value of listening
to different perspectives and understanding the different perspec-
tives that shape taxpayers’ interactions with the government.
I look forward to continuing to consider the different perspectives
of various taxpayers as they interact with the government in front
of the Tax Court.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Landy, for your question, I would like to
hear what past experiences will most shape your time on the Tax
Court?
Mr. LANDY. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. Cer-
tainly, my past experience working as taxpayer counsel in private
practice, and also volunteering, as you heard this morning, with
the Volunteer Income Tax Assistance program, has shaped me to
certainly be able to understand the challenges taxpayers face; to
ask the right questions; to elicit the answers that are necessary to
provide sound legal advice; and to provide a conclusion, hopefully
a result that would be of assistance to them.
And so, those past experiences I bring with me to this role, in
addition to my current role as a special trial judge on the Court.
The CHAIRMAN. I was particularly impressed with that experi-
ence, volunteering, because when I was getting out of law school
years ago, I got all the attorneys in town to volunteer to come and
in effect help start the senior citizens law service, and it sounds
like your background is very similar.
Mr. Way, your past experiences shaping your time on the Court.
Mr. WAY. Well certainly, on the staff of the Joint Committee on
Taxation, we consider a number of different perspectives. We al-
ways try to be honest brokers in a nonpartisan way. We work with
Republicans and Democrats, and try to give the best tax advice
possible. I think certainly that experience has influenced me and
my perspective, and if confirmed as a judge, I would try and bring
that experience and that perspective and listen to all sides, try to
be as fair as possible, and take all different perspectives into con-
sideration.
The CHAIRMAN. I think all four of you are going to serve as excel-
lent appointees, and I look forward to supporting you, and we
thank you.
Senator Crapo?
Senator CRAPO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I would like to say first of all to each of you, that I appre-
ciated Senator Wyden’s questions and your answers to them. It was
very helpful, and my questions are going to follow up, in a little
bit different way, the same approach.
First again, Mr. Ives, you have overseen accounts with signifi-
cant interest from Congress in the Inspector General Offices at
both the Department of Defense and NASA. While it is important
13
for IGs to be independent from their parent agencies’ leaders, Con-
gress is a very specific and important principal stakeholder of the
results of IG reviews through committee oversight, and we take
that oversight very seriously.
How would you ensure that Congress stays informed on ongoing
investigations at the Treasury IG Office? And a follow-up on that
is, can you discuss your interactions in the past with authorizing
and appropriations committees in your IG roles?
Mr. IVES. Thank you for the question, Senator. I, having served
over 30 years with the Office of Inspector General of a couple of
different organizations, completely understand the relevance and
importance of Congress’s oversight role. So, I will do everything
within my power to ensure that Congress has the information they
need in furtherance of that role. I have always taken that ap-
proach.
With regard to my past interaction with Congress and staff, it
has been extensive. I have always been quick to reply when receiv-
ing requests for information from Congress. Obviously, there are
some factors that come into play in the investigative world. Crimi-
nal investigations have to be complete before the information is
passed along. But again, the advantage I have is, having worked
over 30 years in the OIG community, I understand that Congress’s
oversight role is just as important as the OIG’s oversight role.
Senator CRAPO. Thank you. I appreciate that answer. You will
get a lot of input and requests from us.
And to each of the Tax Court nominees, each of you has already
responded in your own way to the issue that I want to raise with
you, but I would like you to do so again, with a little more speci-
ficity on the way I am going to put it. If confirmed, you will preside
over cases that involve taxpayers who often have few resources to
deploy while making their case. Yet the Internal Revenue Service
is a very formidable opponent on the other side of the case.
How does your professional experience lend itself to ensuring
that these taxpayers will be treated not only with the respect and
dignity they need, but with the fairness that they hope they will
get?
Ms. JENKINS. Thank you for the question, Senator. As a prelimi-
nary matter, I would be sure to ensure that taxpayers who appear
before the Court unrepresented are aware of the resources that
may be available to them for assistance, including Low-Income
Taxpayer Clinics and assistance from bar programs that may have
pro bono programs. I would also be sure to ensure that they under-
stand the process, and that they know that they have an impartial
and open ear in me, and make sure that they are comfortable pro-
ceeding before the Court, because I think that it is very important
to ensure that taxpayers who are not as comfortable with the Tax
Court proceedings feel that they are receiving a full hearing.
Senator CRAPO. Thank you.
Mr. Landy?
Mr. LANDY. Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for that question.
In my current role now as a special trial judge, I try to allow self-
represented litigants to be heard. I do that by making sure when
there is a trial session that has been scheduled, about 3 weeks out
from the trial session, I attempt to call, have a conference call with
14
the self-represented litigants to, number one, introduce myself, as
I am the presiding judge over your case; introduce myself, talk
about the process, ask them if they have any concerns. And we talk
through what are the issues that the IRS has raised in the Notice
of Deficiency so they have an idea as to what they need to bring,
if they have not already provided it to the IRS for review. I make
sure they have a trial where they know what the expectations will
be, and at trial I allow the taxpayer petitioners to proceed in a
manner that is most comfortable to them.
I certainly want to understand the facts of the case, so that as
a judge I could apply the law as to those facts. So certainly, keep-
ing and being in communication with the taxpayer.
Senator CRAPO. Thank you.
And Mr. Way?
Mr. WAY. Yes, Senator Crapo. Thank you for the question. Cer-
tainly, I agree with you that it is important that self-represented
taxpayers have an opportunity to be heard in a fair and equitable
way.
In my experience on the Joint Committee staff, we certainly
have—sometimes we have tax LAs or people from outside groups
that come in. Some of them are very sophisticated. Some of them
are less sophisticated, and we adjust the kind of conversation we
have based on how much knowledge about tax that they have.
Now certainly, it is a different context being a judge, with respect
to a self-represented taxpayer. But I agree with my fellow nomi-
nees that it is an important issue, and I would listen and try and
make those self-represented taxpayers have an ability to be heard
and present their cases in the best way possible.
Senator CRAPO. Thank you. And again, I appreciated each of
your responses.
The CHAIRMAN. All done? Thank you, Senator Crapo.
Senator Grassley?
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Ives, you talked about something you
caught in the Defense Department: people stealing money. Was
that that lady who stole $106 million?
Mr. IVES. No sir, that was another investigation.
Senator GRASSLEY. It was not. Okay.
Now for my first question to the Tax Court nominees. I do not
want you to answer today unless you can answer this question with
full knowledge of what the law is. So if you cannot, then answer
these questions in writing.
But I want to start with this opening. I authored important up-
dates to the IRS whistleblower program, which included allowing
whistleblowers to appeal award determinations to the Tax Court.
More recently, I have introduced legislation with Chairman Wyden,
Senators Wicker and Cardin to, among other provisions, beef up
anonymity protection for whistleblowers appearing before the Tax
Court. Whistleblowers often take on great professional and per-
sonal risk in coming forward.
So, this is the question. Do you agree that protecting the ano-
nymity of whistleblowers before the Tax Court is vital to maintain-
ing the well-functioning IRS whistleblower program? Let’s start
with you, Ms. Jenkins.
15
Ms. JENKINS. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do agree
that in our system of voluntary tax compliance, it is very important
to protect whistleblowers and the role that they serve in ensuring
that we collect our tax dollars. I would need to consider more the
countervailing factors, in terms of privacy of and anonymity of
whistleblowers in order to answer your specific question.
Senator GRASSLEY. Okay.
Mr. Landy?
Mr. LANDY. Thank you, Senator. I certainly agree with the com-
ments Ms. Jenkins made. I have not seen your legislation you ref-
erenced, but certainly whistleblowers play an important role in our
tax compliance system, as Ms. Jenkins said. And I would certainly
believe that that is an issue: that we can make sure they have the
ability to present their cases in a fair and impartial manner before
our court.
Senator GRASSLEY. Mr. Way?
Mr. WAY. Thank you for the question. I definitely agree with my
fellow nominees, and with the direction of your question, which is
that whistleblowers are important, and it is important not just
what they have to say, but to protect them, so that new whistle-
blowers will not feel deterred from coming forward.
With respect to your specific legislation that you have introduced,
I am not familiar with it. So I would have to review it and then
respond in writing.
Senator GRASSLEY. Okay.
By the way, Ms. Jenkins, you are taking the place of Elizabeth
Paris, and she worked for this committee a long time. And her tro-
phy she carried around was a well-worn tax code, and she always
had it with her.
Okay. Mr. Ives, on March 11, 2024, I wrote all 74 Inspectors
General requesting that they conduct a review of their agency’s
nondisclosure policies and similar agreements. I asked for that re-
view to ensure compliance with the Federal anti-gag law.
Now that is law today. That law requires that government poli-
cies and agreements include the right to report wrongdoing to Con-
gress and the Inspector General, and the Office of Special Counsel.
On May 10, 2024, the Acting Treasury Inspector General found two
agreements not in compliance with the law, and that the Treasury
Department is working to update them.
So, my question to you: if confirmed, would you commit to ensur-
ing all Treasury nondisclosure policies and similar agreements in-
clude the anti-gag provision that is required by law, including the
two agreements identified by the Acting Inspector General?
And then a follow-up: would you also commit to ensuring Treas-
ury employees are fully informed of their rights to report allega-
tions of waste, fraud, and abuse?
Mr. IVES. The answer to both questions is ‘‘yes,’’ Senator.
Senator GRASSLEY. Thank you. Now also for you, an independent
Inspector General is critical to effectively and objectively carrying
out functions free from bias and interference. Inspectors General
must also keep Congress fully informed about the problems and de-
ficiencies. So from that respect, I should have said I just associate
my remarks with the chairman and ranking member.
16
So, my question to you: if confirmed, will you commit to pro-
viding independent and protective oversight? You probably already
answered that question, but I would like to have it answered again.
Will you also commit to keeping Congress fully informed of agency
wrongdoing, recommendations of corrective action, and Treasury
implementation?
Mr. IVES. Yes, I will, Senator.
Senator GRASSLEY. Okay; thank you.
Now to all Tax Court nominees: if you are confirmed to the Tax
Court, you will hear cases involving many different types of tax-
payers, ranging from large corporations to small businesses and in-
dividuals. Regardless of who might appear before you and what the
issue might be, do you pledge to apply the tax code as written by
Congress and not attempt to legislate in your capacity as a judge
on the Tax Court?
Ms. JENKINS. Yes, I do, Senator.
Mr. LANDY. Yes, Senator.
Mr. WAY. Yes, Senator.
Senator GRASSLEY. Okay.
And my last question to you folks: the Tax Court is important,
since it allows petitioners to challenge an assessed deficiency before
having to pay that amount to the IRS. Many petitioners who go to
Tax Court have little experience working through the dispute with
the IRS, and may even represent themselves. Following up on the
question that Senator Crapo asked, without giving them an unfair
advantage, how will you ensure that all petitioners get their day
in court?
Ms. JENKINS. Senator, I would make sure that they are aware of
the resources that may be available to them for support, and I
would also ensure that they are aware of the processes going for-
ward, and that they have in me a fair and open ear.
Senator GRASSLEY. Okay.
Mr. LANDY. Senator, as I said earlier, I would continue with my
current processes of contacting the petitioners before trial to make
sure they understand when and where their trial will be conducted,
communicate what issues are to be addressed, and to make sure
they understand the procedure and process moving forward.
Mr. WAY. And like my fellow nominees, I would try to make sure
that, particularly self-represented taxpayers have an opportunity to
access volunteer resources or pro bono resources, so that they can
get representation if they choose. If they appear before me and
they are self-represented, I would try to have some sort of pretrial
conference or something, as my fellow nominee suggested, so that
they are aware of what will happen and how best to proceed.
The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Senator GRASSLEY. Congratulations, all.
The CHAIRMAN. And thank you very much, Senator Grassley, for
asking questions about the whistleblowers. And it is an honor for
me to be your cochair.
Senator GRASSLEY. You bet.
The CHAIRMAN. Senator Warren is next.
Senator WARREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and congratulations
to all of our nominees.
17
Mr. Ives, you are nominated to be the Inspector General for the
Treasury Department. Now, I have long been a supporter of IGs.
I think their work as watchdogs is critical to protecting taxpayers,
and identifying waste, fraud, and abuse. This role is particularly
important when it comes to Federal ethics laws. It is an area
where I have been calling for tougher laws and tougher enforce-
ment for years, and it is an area where IGs need to do more.
Two years ago, an investigation by my office found that dozens
of tax lawyers at big four accounting firms had taken key positions
at Treasury and the IRS, where they wrote tax rules that saved
their former clients tens of billions of dollars. That is billions with
a ‘‘b.’’ And then these tax lawyers went right back out the revolving
door to their old employers, receiving big promotions and raises to
boot.
Mr. Ives, do you agree that this kind of revolving door abuse is
exactly the kind of issue that merits a detailed investigation by an
IG?
Mr. IVES. I absolutely agree, Senator.
Senator WARREN. Good. Well, I asked the Acting IG to inves-
tigate this revolving door scandal at Treasury more than 2 years
ago, and he finally released his findings in March. Let me tell you,
it was not worth the wait. The report concluded that Treasury em-
ployees rewriting our tax code for the benefit of giant corporations
they used to work for could not be a problem because, and I quote,
‘‘Treasury’s tax guidance review process includes numerous stages
of review and approval, and multiple individuals.’’
That is it, and because of that, the Acting IG did not bother to
conduct any audit of employer self-reporting of potential conflicts.
He did not conduct a detailed review of any single agency policy or
agency rulemaking. Mr. Ives, does that make sense to you? Do you
think the mere existence of numerous stages of review and ap-
proval are enough to insulate the Department from the impact of
revolving door influence peddling?
Mr. IVES. Without speaking to the specific report, my answer is
‘‘no.’’ I am aware of many situations whereby there was a lengthy
review process in place, yet conflicts of interest existed, and they
were matters that warranted investigation.
Senator WARREN. I am glad to hear that. You know, this report
and its conclusions were atrocious, a whitewash of what appears to
be serious ethics problems at Treasury and IRS. I wrote to the Act-
ing IG and told him to withdraw this report and start over, and
I would like to move to have that letter entered into the hearing
record, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered.
[The letter appears in the appendix beginning on p. 61.]
Senator WARREN. Thank you.
Mr. Ives, if you are confirmed, will you take a fresh look at this
revolving door ethics problem at Treasury?
Mr. IVES. I will, Senator.
Senator WARREN. That is what I want to hear. Thank you, Mr.
Ives.
You know, the work that IGs do is essential to ensuring that the
Federal Government works for hardworking American taxpayers,
not just big corporations and fancy tax lawyers in Washington. In
18
addition to digging into this specific scandal with the big four ac-
counting firms, I hope that, more broadly, you will make ethics and
conflicts of interest a priority, if you are confirmed.
It is critical that IGs investigate these matters, identify whether
any laws have been broken—and this is important: report to Con-
gress if you find that the current Federal ethics laws are inad-
equate and need to be strengthened.
Mr. IVES. I agree, Senator.
Senator WARREN. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague, and these are important
issues. And I raised with Mr. Ives this question as well, about this
position pulling punches in the past. So we are going to be making
these a priority.
Senator Blackburn?
Senator BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
each of you.
Mr. Ives, I have a couple of questions for you first.
I want to talk about, or get from you a little bit on this issue
where Treasury changed the definition of ‘‘obligation’’ for the ARPA
funds to allow States and localities to spend that slush fund that
was paid out to them, to spend it past 2024, and then report that
spending back to Treasury.
So I would hope that you would look at what happened with this
change of definition, and that you are going to investigate how
Treasury took that action; did not come to Congress, but took that
action.
Mr. IVES. Thank you for the question, Senator. Candidly, I am
not currently working at Treasury. I will need to be briefed more
fully on that topic, but it appears to be a significant topic that war-
rants IG attention.
Senator BLACKBURN. Yes, I think it does warrant the IG atten-
tion, and we would like to see that.
The other question that I have for you is on the unemployment
compensation fraud that has taken place. When you look at that
fraud that took place during the pandemic and the estimate of
$135 billion on that—the CARES Act provided $268 billion in ex-
panded insurance benefits. And then we know that much of this
fraud was conducted by some well-organized groups, and because
the benefits were paid with money from the Treasury and not the
State trust fund, States have little incentive to go after this.
And of course, Senator Crapo has legislation that would address
this, but how do you plan to prevent these instances? What are you
going to do in that investigation?
Mr. IVES. Thank you for the question, Senator. First and fore-
most, my understanding is that the Treasury IG is currently
prioritizing those types of investigations. If I were confirmed, they
would continue to do so.
I think there is more that can be done on the front end when
those types of legislation are being put together, and when Treas-
ury is formulating its own policies as far as working with the IG
to establish some controls that should be in place to avoid the
fraud, which obviously is more effective than going after each indi-
vidual, if that is the case.
19
Senator BLACKBURN. Okay.
For our Tax Court nominees, one of the things we hear about in
Tennessee is the case backlog and getting this resolved. So, Ms.
Jenkins, starting with you and down the line, what are you going
to do to address the backlog?
Ms. JENKINS. Thank you, Senator. I do think, given the signifi-
cant caseload of the Tax Court, it will be important to have a full
slate of appointed judges.
If confirmed, I would endeavor to maximize my efficiency in
terms of case management, courtroom management, chambers
management, and also encourage the parties to maximize coopera-
tion, and seek to determine ways that I can run things more effi-
ciently, perhaps deciding cases or issues on motions as opposed to
needing to wait and conduct trials. So those are all the things that
I would try to do to minimize the backlog.
Senator BLACKBURN. Thanks.
Mr. LANDY. Thank you for that question, Senator. Certainly, my
commitment to you is that I will work with the parties, have as
speedy a trial as we can, and to offer an opinion, an expeditious
resolution, order, or published opinion in a short amount of time.
Senator BLACKBURN. Thank you.
Mr. WAY. Like my fellow nominees, I would also try to expedite
the trial sessions and pretrial procedures to try and get things
moving more quickly, and try to—I do want to say, there is a spe-
cific docket, and judges go to different cities. But I also understand
there is an opportunity to do remote pretrial management.
And so I would try and use those processes also to try and expe-
dite cases.
Senator BLACKBURN. Okay.
Judge Landy, I understand that as a special trial judge, you have
done a good bit of your work remotely and virtually. And I would
like to hear from you, are there any differences that you have seen
in the virtual work as compared to doing this in person?
Mr. LANDY. Thank you for the question, Senator. I have cer-
tainly—I came on the Court during the pandemic, and virtual was
the option at the time, and certainly the Court will continue to use
virtual in those cities where it makes sense and for those taxpayers
specifically where it makes sense.
But my experience with virtual has certainly been similar to if
we were in person, to offer the taxpayers an opportunity to present
their case in the manner they prefer, and to offer a fair and impar-
tial resolution of their cases.
Senator BLACKBURN. Okay. Thank you all.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague.
Senator Crapo and I have completed our questioning, but our col-
league, Senator Grassley, has one additional question he would like
to ask of you, Mr. Ives.
Senator GRASSLEY. Just to ask you kind of for your help. You
know, I brought up the $106 million theft that went on in the De-
fense Department. Now, you said you were not investigating that,
so obviously I cannot ask you anything about that.
But I have asked several questions of the Department about how
this could be going on, the theft for over 6 years, and nobody finds
20
it. And so I guess, number one, if you could help get answers to
my question. But more importantly, I sent along with my questions
a 1997 report that I issued after some investigations about the DoD
check-writing machine that goes on in Cincinnati or some place in
Ohio. And people were writing personal checks to their families.
So I investigated; I got an answer. I gave a report of what was
wrong with the Defense Department management system that they
do not catch these things, and so I put out this report.
So, I read about $106 million over 6 years being stolen by one
woman in the Defense Department. And so, I sent this report along
as a reminder that we have been working on this thing for a long
time. And 27 years is a long time to get something done so the
stealing does not go on.
And I hope people will read that 1997 report and find out that
things are really wrong in the Defense Department.
Thank you very much.
The CHAIRMAN. I thank my colleague, and we go back to battles
with respect to auditing the Pentagon and the like. So, I appreciate
my colleague’s leadership.
Okay. So, I want to thank all the members on both sides of the
aisle who participated today. Based on what I have heard, I strong-
ly support all four of these nominations.
Mr. Ives has decades of experience in oversight and law enforce-
ment, and I want to note that several of us have asked about what
is going to be done if you are confirmed as the Treasury IG. You
have made it clear when it comes to issues of wrongdoing, corrup-
tion, conflicts of interest, or abuse of power among officials at the
Treasury Department, if you are confirmed, the days of pulling
punches are over there. And so, we very much appreciated your re-
sponse.
To you, Ms. Jenkins, Mr. Landy, and Mr. Way, I believe you are
highly qualified. You are going to bring decades of public and pri-
vate experience to the Tax Court.
What I would say to colleagues and staff who have not been able
to be here, regarding questions for the record, the deadline for
members to submit these questions for the record will be this Fri-
day, June 7th, at 5 p.m., and I have to tell my colleagues that the
deadline is firm.
We thank members on both sides of the aisle for their coopera-
tion. The committee is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:07 a.m., the hearing was concluded.]
APPENDIX
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES E. CLYBURN,
A U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA
Chairman Wyden and Ranking Member Crapo, thank you for the opportunity to
speak in support of Adam Landy’s nomination to the United States Tax Court.
Adam hails from the ‘‘big’’ city of Aiken, SC. Although Aiken is not in my congres-
sional district, Adam has been associated with members of the Clyburn family for
most of his life. He attended high school and law school with my cousin Courtney
Clyburn Pope, now a South Carolina State circuit judge. Courtney’s mother, Mrs.
Beverly Clyburn—wife of my first cousin State Representative William Clyburn—
was his high school guidance counselor. A product of South Aiken High School, the
University of South Carolina, and the University of South Carolina School of Law,
Adam has a fundamental understanding of what it means to look out for ‘‘the least
of these.’’
After an encounter which resulted in a tax preparer’s fees absorbing almost all
of his tax refund for filing a simple 1040EZ, Adam vowed to never let that happen
again. He learned how to prepare his own returns and became a tax preparer for
his friends. As a law student at USC, Adam developed a love for the tax code and
immersed himself in the intricacies of tax law.
As a 1L student, Adam started working with the Volunteer Income Tax Assist-
ance program, where he provided vital assistance to people who desperately needed
their refunds to live and make ends meet. He continued this work after graduation,
well into his legal career as a tax attorney.
Adam has a diversity of experiences in the profession that make him an ideal can-
didate. As an attorney for the Internal Revenue Service, he has argued before the
Tax Court and has served as a special trial judge in the same venue, calling ‘‘balls
and strikes.’’ He remains connected to his colleagues through his membership and
service to the American Bar Association and the National Bar Association. Adam
clerked on the State circuit court for Judge J. Michelle Childs, now on the pres-
tigious United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
With a proven record of exceptional experience in tax law, Adam Landy is well
prepared to serve on the United States Tax Court. He has already made his home-
town and our State proud, and I have no doubt he will serve with distinction on
this important court.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee’s favorable consideration of this well-qualified
nominee. Thank you.
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM IDAHO
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to our four nominees: Mr. Ives, Ms. Jen-
kins, Mr. Landy, and Mr. Way. Congratulations on your nominations, and thank
you all for your willingness to serve.
Today, we will first hear from James Ives, who is nominated to serve as Inspector
General of the Treasury Department. This position is responsible for keeping both
the Treasury Secretary and Congress fully and currently informed about the prob-
(21)
22
lems and deficiencies relating to the administration of Treasury Department pro-
grams and operations, including the necessity for corrective action.
Mr. Ives, given your depth of experience in the Inspector General community, you
are undoubtedly aware of the importance of oversight and accountability within the
executive branch. If confirmed, it will be your duty to lead efforts to investigate
criminal activity and employee misconduct at Treasury’s bureaus; combat waste,
fraud, and abuse; and detect and deter fraud tied to pandemic-related legislation
and other Treasury operations.
I will be counting on an effective Inspector General to monitor these issues and
ensure a professional level of work at the IG’s office.
Now, moving to the other three nominees under consideration today: Ms. Jenkins,
Mr. Landy, and Mr. Way, who have been nominated to the United States Tax Court.
The Tax Court is committed to providing taxpayers, most of whom are self-
represented, with a reasonable opportunity to challenge the IRS, with as little in-
convenience and expense as is practicable. If taxpayers have a disagreement with
the IRS, the Tax Court serves as a venue to get a fair, impartial, and efficient hear-
ing.
The Tax Court plays a central role in the maintenance of our tax laws, the com-
plexity of which requires highly skilled judges. It is the Finance Committee’s re-
sponsibility to ensure that judges nominated to serve on the Tax Court are prepared
to tackle these complex issues.
These positions are especially important to uphold public trust in the tax system,
which American taxpayers expect and deserve.
I thank each of the nominees for their dedication to our country, and I look for-
ward to hearing their testimony.
----
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. IVES, NOMINATED TO BE
INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, I am
honored to have been nominated to serve as Inspector General of the Department
of the Treasury. If confirmed, I look forward to working closely with this committee
in fulfilling the Office of Inspector General’s vital oversight role.
I would like to recognize my wife Jennifer and our son Jordan for their continued
support throughout this process. I also express my appreciation to my colleagues at
the Department of Defense’s Office of Inspector General (DoD IG) for their encour-
agement, professionalism, and accomplishments overseeing our Nation’s largest—
and most complex—government institution.
I have dedicated my entire adult life to public service. Within 2 months of grad-
uating college, I accepted an entry-level position with the Department of Justice.
Just over a year later, I transferred to DoD IG, where I served as a special agent
with their law enforcement arm, the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (DCIS),
for over 10 years. I quickly came to appreciate the critical importance of the Inspec-
tor General role, seeing firsthand how well-executed OIG initiatives can detect and
deter fraud and abuse and return millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains to the gov-
ernment. My work entailed uncovering procurement fraud, health-care fraud,
cybercrimes, and diversion of sensitive military technology, resulting in successful
criminal prosecutions and civil penalties and fines. By way of example, I partici-
pated in an exhaustive 5-year investigation that resulted in the largest health-care
fraud recovery in our Nation’s history at the time.
In 2001, my life changed dramatically when I was detailed to New York City to
assist with the government’s investigation and recovery efforts following the Sep-
tember 11th terrorist attacks. Subsequent to the attacks, defending the country
against additional terrorist events became DoD’s top priority. I was then asked to
serve as DoD IG’s full-time representative to the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force
upon returning home, where I conducted counterterrorism investigations on a full-
time basis from 2001 through 2004. This experience taught me the value of inter-
agency collaboration, and the importance of ensuring OIG priorities align with our
Nation’s broader objectives.
In 2004, I was promoted into a DoD IG headquarters position. Over the next sev-
eral years, I held a variety of leadership positions at DoD IG, culminating in my
appointment to the Senior Executive Service in 2009. Throughout this period, I de-
23
veloped a keen appreciation for the extent to which an Inspector General can foster
positive change by promoting efficiency within their respective agency.
After serving for over 2 decades at DoD, I sought to diversify my portfolio and
joined the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s OIG, where I led the
Office of Investigations for approximately 6 years. While serving at NASA, I contin-
ued to engage in focused and objective oversight by overseeing investigations involv-
ing fraud, corruption, and other criminal activity. I was also afforded the oppor-
tunity to serve as the Acting Inspector General of the Government Publishing Office
in early 2019 while the organization was seeking a new permanent Inspector Gen-
eral.
In 2021, I experienced a homecoming of sorts when I returned to DoD IG. I ini-
tially served as the organization’s Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contin-
gency Operations before returning to DCIS, where I currently serve as Principal
Deputy Director. Since returning to DCIS, a primary focus has been ensuring we
provide timely oversight of DoD’s Ukraine response efforts. I am extremely proud
of the extent to which the entire DoD IG workforce has embraced this critical mis-
sion.
Having served as a member of the OIG community for over 30 years, I am fully
aware that the role of Inspector General can be a challenging one. IGs are unique
in that they report to both the department they oversee and Congress. Successful
IGs learn to master the art of respectfully and professionally engaging agency and
congressional leaders while remaining independent, objective, and nonpartisan. I be-
lieve my experience has shown that I am capable of ensuring that the Treasury De-
partment’s OIG embraces these tenets. And if confirmed, I will continue to engage
in the same aggressive, objective oversight that I have consistently promoted
throughout my entire career.
Thank you for considering my nomination. I would be happy to answer your ques-
tions.
----
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): James Richard Ives.
2. Position to which nominated: Inspector General, Department of the Treasury.
3. Date of nomination: January 11, 2024.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: July 2, 1970, Glens Falls, NY.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband’s name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, dates attended,
degree received, and date degree granted):
Georgetown University, 2004–2005.
Master of Policy Management, granted in May 2005.
State University of New York’s College at Brockport, 1990–1992.
Bachelor’s Degree in Criminal Justice, granted in May 1992.
Adirondack Community College, 1988–1990.
Associate’s Degree in Police Science, granted in May 1990.
Hudson Falls High School, 1984–1988.
High School Diploma, granted in June 1988.
24
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the title or descrip-
tion of job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment for
each job):
1992–1994.
U.S. Department of Justice, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
Montreal, Canada.
Position held: Immigration Inspector.
1994–1998.
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General, Defense Criminal In-
vestigative Service.
Boston, MA.
Position held: Special Agent.
1998–1999.
U.S. Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service.
Washington, DC.
Position held: Special Agent.
1999–2015
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General Defense Criminal In-
vestigative Service.
Boston, MA; Arlington, VA; Alexandria, VA.
Positions held:
• Special Agent (1999–2004, Boston, MA).
• Criminal Intelligence Program Manager (2004–2005, Arlington, VA).
• Assistant Deputy Director for National Security (2005–2007, Arlington,
VA).
• Deputy Director of Investigative Operations (2007–2008, Arlington, VA).
• Special Agent-in-Charge, Mid-Atlantic Field Office (2008–2009, Arlington,
VA).
» Note: While serving in this position, I temporarily served as DoD
IG’s Acting Principal Director of the Office of Professional Responsi-
bility for approximately a 4-month period.
• Assistant Inspector General for Investigative Operations/Deputy Director
of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service (Arlington, VA and Alexan-
dria, VA, 2009–2015).
» Note: While serving in this position, I temporarily served as Acting
Deputy Inspector General for Intelligence and Special Assessments
for approximately a 4-month period.
2015–2021.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Office of Inspector General.
Washington, DC.
Position held: Assistant Inspector General for Investigations.
• Note: While serving in this position, I served on a detail assignment as
the Acting Inspector General of the Government Publishing Office in
Washington, DC for a 4-month period.
2021–present.
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of Inspector General.
Alexandria, VA.
Positions held:
• Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations (2021).
• Principal Deputy Director of the Defense Criminal Investigative Service
(2021–present).
Other Employment
1998–2006.
U.S. Coast Guard Reserve.
Coast Guard Investigative Service.
Boston, MA and Washington, DC.
Active Reservist (E5), 1998–2000.
Individual Ready Reserve, 2000–2006.
Position held: Special Agent (reservist).
25
2017–present.
American University.
Washington, DC.
Position held: Adjunct Professorial Lecturer (part-time).
2007–present.
University of Maryland Global Campus.
Adelphi, MD.
Position held: Adjunct Professor (part-time).
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory, consultative, hon-
orary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local gov-
ernments held since college, including dates, other than those listed above):
All government experience is listed above.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, nonvoting, etc.), proprietor,
agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partner-
ship, other business enterprise, or educational or other institution):
None.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as any current
and former offices held in professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, char-
itable, and other organizations dating back to college, including dates for these
memberships and offices):
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE), Chair of
the Assistant Inspector General for Investigations (AIGI) Committee (2020–
2021).
Fairfax County Police Department’s Citizens Advisory Committee, Sully Dis-
trict, Vice Chair (2017–2018).
Senior Executives Association (approximately 2011–2021), member.
Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, member (approximately 1994–
2021).
Association of Inspectors General (2021–present), member.
Chantilly National Country Club (2021–present), Chantilly, VA, member.
Alpha Phi Sigma National Criminal Justice Honor Society, inducted in 1992.
Phi Theta Kappa National Honor Society, inducted in 1990.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate dating back to the
age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees, currently and during the last 10 years prior
to the date of your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization,
political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for
the past 10 years prior to the date of your nomination.
None.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, hon-
orary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievement received since the age of 18):
SCHOLARSHIPS
Women in the Marines Corp scholarship (sponsored by grandmother), 1988.
Adirondack Community College academic scholarship (full tuition), 1988–1990.
FELLOWSHIP
Senior Executive Fellowship, Harvard University, November 2017.
26
AWARDS AND RECOGNITIONS
Received DoD IG’s Distinguished Career Achievement Award upon departing
the organization in 2015.
Received DoD IG’s Team Work Award for contributing to the agency’s prolonged
multicomponent oversight efforts in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan (2014).
Received DCIS’s Manager of the Year award (2007).
Received DoD OIG’s Team Work Award for working in conjunction with other
DCIS program managers to prepare an intelligence assessment deemed relevant
to a multitude of DoD assets (2005).
Received a certificate of appreciation from the President’s Council for Integrity
and Efficiency for substantial participation in the U.S. Government’s response
to terrorist attacks upon New York City on September 11, 2001. I was one of
a group of DCIS special agents who were immediately detailed to New York for
several months to assist in the government’s investigation and recovery efforts
(2001).
Received the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector
General Cooperative Achievement Award for Investigative Excellence (2000).
Received the President’s Council for Integrity and Efficiency Award for Inves-
tigative Excellence (2000).
Received the U.S. Attorney’s Office (District of Massachusetts) Award for Inves-
tigative Excellence (2000).
Received the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Award for Academics
upon achieving a 95.68 cumulative exam score (1998).
Throughout my career, I received approximately 12 separate outstanding per-
formance awards or special act awards with accompanying cash awards of vary-
ing amounts, as well as a quality step increase.
Inducted into the Hudson Falls, NY Central School District’s Wall of Distinction
(2010), which honors highly successful graduates of the Hudson Falls Central
School District who have gone on to distinguished careers in various fields and
become role models in their communities.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and hyperlinks (as applica-
ble) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, or other published materials you
have written):
Authored an article entitled, ‘‘Inspectors General: Prioritizing Accountability,’’
which was featured in the Fall/Winter 2009–2010 edition of The Journal of Pub-
lic Inquiry. See page 25 at: https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/
fw09jpi.pdf.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) you have
delivered during the past 5 years which are on topics relevant to the position
for which you have been nominated, including dates):
None.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to serve in the position
to which you have been nominated):
I am a seasoned Federal Government oversight professional who possesses over
3 decades of highly relevant experience, to include 28 years’ experience within
the U.S. Inspector General community, and 14 years’ experience as a senior ex-
ecutive at the U.S. Department of Defense and the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration. I possess wide-ranging experience conducting and over-
seeing exceptionally complicated investigations, audits, inspections, and evalua-
tions pertaining to some of our Nation’s most sensitive initiatives. I also possess
extensive experience detecting, investigating, and deterring multifaceted cor-
porate fraud, public corruption (e.g., bribery, kickbacks, gratuities, and conflicts
of interest), procurement and acquisition fraud, complex financial crimes, ac-
counting fraud, arrant mismanagement, grievous policy or procedural violations,
and employee misconduct.
The investigations I have conducted or overseen have resulted in billions of dol-
lars in penalties, fines, and restitution being returned to the U.S. Government.
By way of example, I participated in an exhaustive 5-year long health-care
fraud investigation that uncovered a wide-ranging conspiracy to defraud Medi-
27
care, TRICARE (the military’s health-care system), and a variety of other Fed-
eral health-care programs. The investigation resulted in the largest health-care
fraud recovery in our Nation’s history at the time, and several high-level execu-
tives pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
Also noteworthy is the fact that I was a member of a group of OIG special
agents who responded to the tragic terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In
the aftermath of the attacks, I was immediately deployed to New York City,
where I assisted with the government’s recovery and investigative efforts for
several months.
My entire adult life has been devoted to public service, and I look forward to
continuing to serve the country in this new capacity if I am privileged to be con-
firmed.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future benefit arrange-
ments) with your present employers, business firms, associations, or organiza-
tions if you are confirmed by the Senate? If not, provide details.
Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government?
If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ your
services in any capacity after you leave government service? If so, provide de-
tails.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out your full term
or until the next presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
personal relationships, including spousal or family employment, which could in-
volve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been nomi-
nated.
None.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you
have had during the last 10 years (prior to the date of your nomination), wheth-
er for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any
way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to which
you have been nominated.
None.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date of your nomina-
tion) in which you have engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influ-
encing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the ad-
ministration and execution of law or public policy. Activities performed as an
employee of the Federal Government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Provide the committee
with two copies of any trust or other agreements.)
In connection with this nomination process, I have consulted with the Office of
Government Ethics and the Designated Agency Ethics Official at the Depart-
ment of the Treasury to identify any potential conflicts of interest. I am un-
aware of any potential conflicts of interest. In the event that an actual or poten-
tial conflict of interest arises during my appointment, I will consult with the
Treasury Department’s ethics counsel and take the measures necessary to re-
solve the conflict.
28
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been investigated, disciplined,
or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional conduct before any
court, administrative agency (e.g., an Inspector General’s office), professional as-
sociation, disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any
time? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless of the out-
come.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of any Federal, State,
county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic
offense? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part
of any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
Yes. In 2013, I was one of numerous individuals listed as a defendant in a Fed-
eral civil suit (complaint for damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1331 and Bivens)
filed in the Middle District of Georgia (3:13–cv–175–J–99TJC–MCR, Debra L.
Long vs. David E. Nammias et al.). The plaintiff (Long) claimed her Fourth
Amendment rights were violated when she was investigated, arrested, and pros-
ecuted for defrauding the government (she was ultimately acquitted). Although
I was not directly involved in conducting the investigation, I was named in the
suit by virtue of my role as Special Agent-in-Charge of the DCIS field office re-
sponsible for conducting the investigation. The case was dismissed without prej-
udice in 2015.
In 2014, I was the plaintiff in a small claims case (GV14017343–00, James R.
Ives vs. Jeremy Trujillo) in the General District Court of Virginia (Fairfax Coun-
ty). I filed a warrant in debt suit when a contractor accepted a deposit but failed
to provide deck sealing services at my home. The case was dismissed at my re-
quest when the contractor performed the required services.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of
any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavor-
able, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.
I have served honorably as a Federal law enforcement officer for over 30 years.
I have held a top-secret security clearance for my entire adult life. I have never
been subjected to any form of discipline. I enjoy a stellar reputation throughout
the OIG community.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may
be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide such information
as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
----
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO JAMES R. IVES
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Question. There are significant opportunities for artificial intelligence to extend
the abilities of an Inspector General in assuring accountability of government agen-
cies. If confirmed to this role, will you commit to investigate how AI can be imple-
29
mented to help provide independent, objective, and unbiased reviews of the depart-
ment’s operations?
Answer. Artificial intelligence technologies hold great promise for the government
sector and present enhanced opportunities for government agencies to benefit the
public and increase mission effectiveness. If confirmed, I commit to exploring the
ways in which artificial intelligence technologies can be leveraged to improve the
work of Treasury’s Office of Inspector General, including by enhancing the OIG’s
ability to analyze data to identify patterns that indicate possible waste, fraud, and
abuse. I commit that any such use of these technologies will be undertaken with
structured governance and that I will make myself available to work with you and
your staff on this important issue.
Question. A March 6, 2024 Treasury Office of Inspector General Report (OIG–24–
025) found that OFAC complied with requirements regarding Ukraine/Russia-
related Sanctions but documentation was not consistently complete nor timely
closed.
Given your previous experiences, I am sure you understand the importance of ef-
fective and efficient anti-money laundering programs to prevent terrorist financing.
If confirmed to this role, how will you work with the offices within Treasury to en-
sure speedy and accurate compliance of all rules, regulations, and statutes?
Answer. Having been a member of the Inspector General community for over 30
years, mostly in the national defense space, I certainly understand the importance
of a robust OIG that holds agencies accountable for maintaining compliance with
all rules, regulations, and statutes. Both Congress and the American people must
have confidence that their government is working for them, and I have seen first-
hand how an effective OIG can greatly enhance transparency and accountability,
leading to better government.
Throughout my career, I have learned that successful Inspectors General respect-
fully and professionally engage agency leaders to elicit timely and necessary infor-
mation, while remaining wholly independent, objective, and impartial in their re-
views. If confirmed, I commit that I will approach the Inspector General role at
Treasury in this manner, exhibiting the diligence and integrity that I have shown
throughout my entire career to achieve successful outcomes. Further, I will do ev-
erything I can to ensure that all OIG employees have the tools and resources nec-
essary to be successful at their jobs.
----
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. CHUCK GRASSLEY
Question. During the hearing you testified that ‘‘over the past 30 years, I’ve never
shied away from investigations that potentially require the delivery of very bad
news to the Department or the Congress for that matter,’’ and ‘‘just last week, an
investigation involving a very senior military official, now a former military official,
who has been charged with bribery, was reported in media circles. And my organiza-
tion played a very critical role in that investigation.’’ I asked whether this was in
reference to the approximately $106 million dollars that former Army civilian em-
ployee Janet Mello was convicted of stealing in March of 2024, and you said ‘‘no.’’
Regarding Janet Mello, on March 19, 2024, I first wrote to Defense Finance Ac-
counting Service (DFAS) Director Davis requesting answers how Janet Mello could
have obtained 43 fraudulent payments from DFAS totaling approximately $106 mil-
lion over the course of 7 years for a fake company created and owned in Mello’s
name. I’ve included my March 19, 2024, letter and my May 28, 2024, follow-up let-
ter to DFAS.
Has the DoD OIG opened or plan to open an investigation into the circumstances
that allowed Janet Mello to steal the approximately $106 million from taxpayers
over 7 years? If not, why not?
Answer. The DoD OIG component that I currently oversee, the Defense Criminal
Investigative Service (DCIS), played no role in the investigation at issue. My under-
standing is that the investigation was conducted by the U.S. Army’s Criminal Inves-
tigation Command (Army CID) in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service’s
(IRS) Criminal Investigations Division and the Department of Justice.
As DoD OIG’s law enforcement arm, DCIS’s role is typically limited to the inves-
tigation of potential criminal violations, whereas other OIG components, by virtue
of their responsibilities, explore the circumstances that may have resulted in defi-
30
ciencies that could lead to fraud, waste, or abuse. Since the underlying investigation
is complete and the subject of the investigation has pleaded guilty, DCIS does not
plan to launch its own investigation. My responsibilities at DoD OIG are specific
to DCIS, so I am uncertain whether other OIG components plan to open inquiries
(audits, evaluations, et cetera) that are directly or indirectly related to this matter.
Question. When did the DoD OIG become aware of Mello’s fraudulent conduct?
Answer. See above. The investigation at issue was conducted by Army CID and
IRS. DCIS played no role in the investigation. I first became aware of the matter
when reviewing a Department of Justice press release and related media coverage
referencing Mello’s indictment on December 6, 2023. I would respectfully refer you
to Army CID and IRS for more information on their investigative work.
Question. Did the DoD OIG receive any tips concerning Mello’s fraudulent conduct
prior to and after the criminal investigation leading to her arrest? If yes, please de-
scribe in detail the actions taken by the DOD OIG office to investigate these tips.
Answer. See above. DCIS was not involved in the investigation at issue. To the
best of my knowledge, DCIS has never received tips or other complaints pertaining
to Mello. I would respectfully refer you to Army CID and IRS for more information
on their investigative work.
Question. Reports and court records indicate the IRS first caught wind of Mello’s
fraudulent activity. When did the IRS first contact DoD about suspicions concerning
Mello?
Answer. See above. DCIS was not involved in the investigation at issue. I am un-
aware of the particulars regarding the IRS’s interactions with Army CID. I would
respectfully refer you to Army CID and IRS for more information on their investiga-
tive work.
Question. Did the DoD or DoD OIG open and then initiate an investigation into
Mello after being notified about the IRS investigation? If not, why not?
Answer. See above. DCIS was not involved in the investigation involving Mello.
I am unaware of the particulars regarding the IRS’s interactions with Army CID.
I would respectfully refer you to Army CID and IRS for more information on their
investigative work.
Question. Have any corrective actions been taken against employees who allowed
Janet Mello to fraudulently steal the approximately $106 million from Army? If yes,
please provide a detailed description of the corrective actions. If not, why not?
Answer. See above. As DCIS played no role in the investigation at issue, I am
unaware of the corrective action(s) the Army has taken—or plans to take—in re-
sponse to this matter. I would respectfully refer you to Army CID and IRS for more
information on their investigative work.
Question. In your testimony, you stated that ‘‘I initially served as the organiza-
tion’s Deputy Inspector General for Overseas Contingency Operations before return-
ing to DCIS, where I currently serve as principal deputy director. Since returning
to DCIS, a primary focus has been ensuring we provide timely oversight of DOD’s
Ukraine response efforts. I am extremely proud of the extent to which the entire
DOD IG workforce has embraced this critical mission.’’
On October 17, 2023, I wrote to DoD Secretary Austin concerning the DoD OIG
report titled, The DoD’s Accountability of Equipment Provided to Ukraine, which
found non-U.S. weaponry was, at one point, stolen from Ukraine fighters by crimi-
nals, volunteer fighters, and arms traffickers. The DoD OIG report ‘‘found that the
DoD was unable to provide end-use monitoring (EUM) in accordance with DoD pol-
icy because of limited U.S. presence in Ukraine.’’ While some oversight efforts have
been reportedly improved since the IG report, DoD OIG has indicated that oversight
of U.S.-provided weaponry continues to be an issue as recent as May and June of
2023. It is imperative that the government properly oversees how taxpayer funds
and military equipment, supported by the taxpayer, have been used and that the
equipment is not trafficked to arm our enemies.
Since the release of the DoD OIG report mentioned above, what efforts has the
DoD OIG taken to:
• Ensure DoD has the adequate number of personnel to access and track U.S.-
provided weapon deliveries to Ukraine?
31
• Account for how much U.S. weaponry is missing and the total dollar amount
of that equipment?
• Ensure DoD has taken steps to prevent U.S.-provided weaponry to Ukraine is
not sold on the black market or by other illicit means?
Answer. The report referenced above was issued by DoD OIG’s Evaluations com-
ponent. The DoD OIG component that I currently oversee, DCIS, did not play a sub-
stantive role in the review that resulted in the issuance of the report, nor was I
personally involved in the review. Given this fact, I cannot speak to the report’s
findings or the follow-on actions associated with the report. However, DCIS has as-
signed senior investigators to Embassy Kiev who routinely engage with U.S. and
host nation officials regarding criminal allegations involving related matters. DCIS
is currently prioritizing any/all investigations involving the potential diversion of
U.S. defense articles destined for Ukraine and other fraudulent schemes involving
DoD’s Ukraine-response efforts.
Question. How many DoD personnel currently have on-the-ground access to U.S.-
provided weapons deliveries in Ukraine? How do they track U.S. equipment and at
what stages in the delivery process do they track it?
Answer. See above. The DoD OIG component that I currently oversee, DCIS, did
not play a substantive role in the review that resulted in issuance of the report.
Given this fact, I am unable to elaborate on the report’s findings or follow-on actions
associated with the report. I would respectfully refer you to DoD OIG’s Evaluations
component for more information about their work.
Question. How much U.S.-provided weaponry to Ukraine is unaccounted for?
What is the total dollar amount of that equipment?
Answer. See above. The DoD OIG component that I currently oversee, DCIS, did
not play a substantive role in the review that resulted in issuance of the report.
Given this fact, I am unable to elaborate on the report’s findings or follow-on actions
associated with the report. I would respectfully refer you to DoD OIG’s Evaluations
component for more information about their work.
Question. What steps have you taken to ensure U.S.-provided weaponry to
Ukraine is not sold on the black market or by other illicit means? To-date, has DoD
encountered any diverted, U.S.-provided equipment intended for Ukraine? If so,
please explain the details of the equipment, the facts surrounding each diversion,
and whether the equipment was recovered.
Answer. DCIS is one of several law enforcement organizations responsible for in-
vestigating the alleged diversion of U.S.-provided equipment intended for Ukraine,
to include items sold on the black market or by other illicit means. At my direction,
the component is currently prioritizing these investigations. To date, DCIS’s inves-
tigations have not substantiated any such instances, however, we continue to ag-
gressively pursue any/all allegations involving potential diversion.
Question. You were not present at the DOD Office of Inspector General (OIG) dur-
ing the investigation that led up to the OIG’s 2020 Report on the Joint Enterprise
Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) Cloud Procurement. However, you returned to the
DOD OIG in 2021, a time period when I and other members of Congress were criti-
cizing that report and serious omissions that rendered its conclusions questionable.
Since then, members have asked for the names of OIG officials who worked on the
report, but the office has failed to provide that information to Congress. I addressed
the U.S. Senate on March 14, 2024, highlighting failures in the report related to
its analysis of ethics issues involving Senior Advisor to Secretary James Mattis,
Sally Donnelly, and her business partner, Andre Pienaar.
The OIG has failed to respond to that address or to my inquiry about how new
information I revealed in 2022 may have affected its JEDI conflicts analysis. This
information included the identity of the company that purchased Ms. Donnelly’s
firm as she entered DOD service, which the DOD OIG failed to obtain during its
investigation. Internal emails omitted from the OIG’s report show Ms. Donnelly
working behind the scenes to favor Amazon in the early stages of the JEDI procure-
ment, even though she was receiving payments for the sale of her company to an
Amazon-affiliated company. Despite this, the OIG found no areas where Ms. Don-
nelly violated any of her ethical obligations.
Did you have any role at all, or did you discuss with anyone in DOD, in the DOD
OIG, or outside DOD at any time, any of the inquiries I have made related to the
32
JEDI procurement? If so, please describe your role and the content of those con-
versations to the best of your memory.
Answer. No. I did not play any role in the DoD OIG inquiry at issue, nor have
I discussed related matters with anyone in DoD, in the DoD OIG, or outside DoD
at any time.
Question. Did you have any role in the DOD IG’s response to my October 24, 2022
letter, which provided details related to the sale of Ms. Donnelly’s company, SBD
Advisors? If so, describe that role and whether you played any role in the OIG’s fail-
ure to answer the issues I raised.
Answer. No. I did not play any role in this matter.
Question. Did anyone at DOD OIG raise concerns with you about the integrity of
the OIG’s JEDI report at any time? If so, what were those concerns, and who raised
them?
Answer. No. I did not play any role in this matter. No one at DoD OIG has raised
concerns with me regarding this matter.
Question. Have you heard of the concept of ‘‘rounding’’ OIG reports? If so, what
do you take that term to mean, and are you aware of any instances where the prac-
tice was employed at the DOD OIG?
Answer. No. I am unfamiliar with the term ‘‘rounding.’’ I have not heard this term
referenced in discussions with any DoD OIG employees.
Question. Do you believe an Inspector General has the right to refuse to supply
the names of public servants who worked on a report, paid for by the taxpayer,
where Congress requests that information due to serious concerns about the work
product? Will you pledge to provide the names of those who work on reports in your
new role, if Congress asks for that information?
Answer. I believe that an Inspector General should be as transparent as possible
when receiving requests from Congress. If confirmed, I will pledge to review all
Treasury OIG polices relating to the release of information requested by Congress
in conjunction with the organization’s Office of Counsel, and ensure said policies ad-
vance transparency and comply with acceptable legal standards and relevant gov-
erning principles.
Question. Do you know the names of any OIG officials who worked on the 2020
JEDI report? If so, please name all officials you know who worked on the report
and their role in it.
Answer. Since I did not play any role in the review or responding to follow-on in-
quiries, I am not able to name the OIG officials who worked on the report and /or
describe their roles.
Question. Have you worked on any other matters at DOD OIG where anyone al-
leged Amazon had received improper preference in any contract, or had improperly
been awarded a contract? If so, please describe the subject of the investigation, your
role in it, and the status and/or conclusion of that investigation.
Answer. No.
Question. If you are confirmed, how would you handle a similar inquiry from Con-
gress that questions the integrity and conclusions of one of your reports? Please dis-
tinguish what steps you would take and how they would differ from the steps the
DOD OIG has taken in responding to congressional inquiries related to JEDI.
Answer. Since I did not play any role in the review or responding to follow-on in-
quiries, I am unable to comment on the steps that DoD OIG has taken in respond-
ing. However, if I were confirmed and Congress were to raise concerns regarding
the integrity and conclusions of any Treasury OIG report, I would ensure that those
concerns were thoroughly investigated. And if necessary, I would ensure that appro-
priate corrective action was taken in the event a report was found to be deficient.
33
United States Senate
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE EMERITUS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510–1501
March 19, 2024
The Honorable Audrey Y. Davis
Director
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
8999 East 56th St.
Indianapolis, IN 46249
Dear Director Davis:
I am writing to request information and supporting documentation pertaining to
43 fraudulent payments totaling $103.3 million that your office made to a fake com-
pany, CHYLD, created by an Army employee, Janet Y. Mello.
In order to help me understand how such a large sum of money could be paid
to a non-existent company from 2016 to 2023 without detection by internal controls
and /or vigilant oversight, I request that you provide the following documents and
answers to related questions:
• A list of all payments to CHYLD/Mello, including date of payment, amount of
payment, payee, reemit address;
• All 43 payment vouchers;
• Were all payments made with U.S. Treasury checks?
• The indictment indicates that CHYLD/Mello award packages included her
memoranda giving DFAS ‘‘instructions to cut a check to the entity specified
in the award package, CHYLD. DFAS would then mail the check to CHYLD per
shipping instructions detailed in the memo.’’ The checks were sent via
FEDEX to a UPS Mailbox rented by Mello and located at 20770 Hwy 281 N
Suite 108–421, San Antonio, TX 78258 and other addresses. Is there anything
unusual or suspicious about her special instructions on handling and delivery
of the 43 checks?
• DFAS payments are automatically mailed or transmitted directly to a remit ad-
dress. So why were special instructions necessary for her checks?
• Law requires a taxpayer identification number (TIN) on all certified payment
vouchers submitted to a disbursing officer for payment. The TIN is a unique
9-digit identifier assigned to all individuals by the Social Security Administra-
tion and to businesses by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Did the TIN and
other data on the Mello payment vouchers match up with pertinent data on
U.S. Treasury checks?
• Were tax forms or any other tax reporting documents submitted to the IRS con-
cerning thepayments to CHYLD?
• When did IRS first alert DFAS to the potential fraud on CHYLD payments?
• Provide any DFAS communications with IRS regarding this matter.
• Vendors, which have completed a service contract with the Army’s Child and
Youth Services Division (CYS), submit an invoice requesting payment. Mello,
however, seemed to bypass invoicing procedures. Apparently, she substituted a
Standard Form (SF) 1080, which is normally used to transfer funds between
agencies, for an invoice. Court documents indicate that her use of an SF 1080
signaled to DFAS that ‘‘CHYLD was recognized as a government vendor allow-
ing payment to proceed without an invoice.’’ Was this a blatant misuse of an
SF 1080? Since an SF 1080 is used for fund transfers between appropriations,
how can that form be used to invalidate the requirement for invoices to docu-
ment the delivery of goods and services at an agreed upon price?
• Where in the regulations does it say that an SF 1080 can be substituted for
an invoice?
• Who in DFAS management approved the substitution of an SF 1080 for an in-
voice? Isn’t that a violation of financial management regulations?
• Why did Mello insist on an SF 1080 versus invoice?
• Isn’t this a red flag?
• Were all 43 payments totaling $103 million made without invoices?
34
• Please provide all Mello’s instructions contained in the memoranda that formed
the foundation for her allegedly fraudulent payments. If all are identical, then
just provide one example.
• Why didn’t due diligence detect this sham operation early on? How could it con-
tinue for 7 years undetected?
• Was there anything out of the ordinary about the documentation presented in
support of the CHYLD/Mello checks?
• Did any of these payments raise red flags? Did any questions or concerns sur-
face within DFAS regarding any of these payments? If so, please provide all
pertinent details.
• Director Davis, when did you first become aware of Mello’s alleged fraudulent
activity?
• Since the fraud continued for 7 years without interruption, who in the Depart-
ment is chiefly responsible for this colossal failure of internal controls? Has any-
one been held accountable?
• DFAS employees have access the DoD-wide Hotline. Were there any Hotline
complaints regarding these payments?
• Was having Mello listed as the point of contact on all 43 payments a red flag?
• Was the role of IMCOM 1 in this matter in any way improper or unusual?
The answers to these questions may pinpoint where and how internal controls
failed. With that information, maybe we can solve this problem.
It seems inconceivable that the Army and DFAS could pour $103 million into just
one simple military-connected 4-H youth project over the short span of 7 years with-
out raising any questions or having one overseer curious enough to inspect the
project. The address of the fake company was not more than a few miles from the
CYS program management office at Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio where Mello
was employed. A spot check would have been so quick and easy, and the fraud
would have been exposed instantly.
I look forward to your full support and cooperation in addressing this matter. I
expect all of my questions to be answered by March 29, 2024. If you need to discuss
my inquiry, you may contact Charles Murphy or Noah Parlee in my office. Your as-
sistance in resolving these issues would be appreciated.
Sincerely,
Charles E. Grassley,
U.S. Senator
United States Senate
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE EMERITUS
WASHINGTON, DC 20510–1501
May 28, 2024
Director Audrey Y. Davis
Defense Finance and Accounting Service
8999 East 56th Street
Indianapolis, IN 46249
Dear Director Davis:
Your May 7th response to my March 19th inquiry regarding the $109 million in
fraudulent payments to Ms. Janet Mello is unsatisfactory for three reasons: (1) You
do not answer my questions; (2) You do not explain why the Mello case was allowed
to fester undetected for 6 years; and (3) You do not explain how you will bring inter-
nal controls up to required standards.
First, please answer all my questions. The list is attached for your convenience.
Second, your letter opens with this truncated thought: ‘‘financial controls are very
important to the Defense Department and Defense Finance and Accounting Service
1 Installation Management Command, at Fort Sam Houston.
35
(DFAS),’’ as they should be. However, you need to expand on that. As the Pentagon’s
chief bill payer, you need to explain why internal controls are important. You need
to explain how they should play a key role in detecting and deterring theft and pre-
venting fraudsters like Mello from ripping off the taxpayers. You need to tell us
why they failed in the case of Mello, and fully explain how you are planning to beef
up controls. You need to get to work with the financial managers in the Pentagon
on designing a whole new system of internal controls that will permanently plug
all the holes. To get there, the department should acquire modern, fully integrated
accounting systems that are capable of tracking transactions—the lifeblood of con-
trols.
Third, you also make a claim that defies understanding given the hundreds of
millions of taxpayer dollars lost to fraud. You assert that the fraudulent payments
to Ms. Mello ‘‘complied with applicable DoD regulations and policy.’’ What
is the meaning of that statement? Clearly, something is very wrong. Mello was able
to drive a Mack Truck right through gaping holes in DFAS controls from at least
December 2016 until August 2023. DFAS was clueless until the Army’s investigative
agency blew the whistle. To make matters worse, in reading court documents, I see
a number of irregularities or red warning flags. Mello—with DFAS cooperation—
may have used some very unusual and clever payment procedures to circumvent
controls. Her complicated payment instructions should have alerted DFAS watch-
dogs: ‘‘Something doesn’t smell right.’’ A quick spot check of Mello’s fictitious ‘‘work
site’’ could have blown her cover in short order. On-site inspections are a valuable
way to verify delivery with certainty.
The importance of delivery verification—be it goods or services—was hammered
home in a review of DoD internal controls prepared by my Judiciary Oversight Sub-
committee staff 25 years ago. That investigation was led by Mr. A. Ernest Fitz-
gerald, Management Systems Deputy of the Air Force, who was detailed to my staff
to conduct this review.1 This investigation was triggered by the theft of large sums
of money by four crooks—military and DoD civilians. They mirror the Mello case.
With Ernie’s leadership, we tested controls by tracking 200 invoices generated by
an office in the Pentagon where fraud had occurred. We followed them through the
entire cycle of transactions—from request to purchase, to contract award, to invoice,
to payment and issuing of U.S. Treasury checks, and to delivery verification, includ-
ing, for example, an on-site inspection of audiovisual equipment serial numbers in
the National Military Command Center to be sure they matched supporting docu-
mentation. Verification depended on meticulous document and hardware match-ups.
I forward the September 1998 staff report to you, hoping it will give you insight
on the Mellocase and how any official with oversight responsibilities can take the
initiative and check todetermine whether a transaction is legitimate.2
Given the magnitude of the fraudulent payments to Mello, I think you owe Con-
gress a full report on what happened, who is responsible, and what corrective action
is planned, including the need for administrative and disciplinary action. With the
red flags highlighted in court documents, a watchful eye might have caught the
fraudulent payments early on. Approving $109 million in fraudulent payments with-
out a spot check to verify delivery is unacceptable. Heads should roll.
In closing, I would like to remind you that Mello is just one small dot on a long
trail of thefts—a trail that keeps reinforcing this inescapable truth: DoD/DFAS In-
ternal controls are weak or non-existent. This warning has been popping up
in audit reports for 30–40 years. The taxpayers deserve better. DFAS needs to get
on the stick and establish effective controls over the peoples’ money.
1 Ernie Fitzgerald was removed from his senior position at the direction of President Nixon
for ‘‘committing truth’’ on the C–SA aircraft cost overrun. After 12 years of legal battles, he was
reinstated in his former position by court order but was never allowed to do this job. He was
relegated to a cubbyhole in the attic of the Pentagon until retirement. His 2-year assignment
to my staff allowed him to apply his vast knowledge to oversight of wasteful DoD spending prac-
tices.
2 https://www.grassley.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/grassley_staff_joint_review_of_internal_
control_at_dod_1998_report.pdf.
36
Your full cooperation and prompt response will be appreciated.
Charles E. Grassley
U.S. Senator
----
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG
Question. In your opinion, is it ever acceptable for an IRS employee or contractor
to disclose confidential taxpayer data illegally, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? If your answer is ‘‘yes,’’
please provide examples of the circumstances you believe would warrant such illegal
activity.
Answer. No. The safety and security of taxpayer data are of critical importance,
and IRS employees and contractors have a duty to safeguard this confidential infor-
mation and comply with all legal obligations that govern the sharing of taxpayer
data. Any individual who unlawfully discloses confidential taxpayer information
should be held accountable under the law. It is my understanding that the Treasury
Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) has jurisdiction over Internal
Revenue Service matters, including unlawful disclosures of taxpayer information.
However, if confirmed to lead Treasury’s Office of Inspector General, I commit to
working closely with TIGTA and Treasury leadership to ensure that the security of
taxpayer data is a top priority.
Question. In the event that an IRS employee or contractor illegally discloses con-
fidential taxpayer information, in your opinion as a lay person do you believe that
individual should be criminally charged for each individual offense, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’?
If your answer is ‘‘no,’’ please explain. Note that this question asks your opinion as
a lay person and does not ask how you would approach any kind of recommendation
if you were to be confirmed to this position.
Answer. It is my understanding that TIGTA has jurisdiction over Internal Rev-
enue Service matters, including the unlawful disclosure of taxpayer information,
and that the Department of Justice is responsible for making charging decisions
where an individual has violated the law. I am aware that the Internal Revenue
Code imposes strict confidentiality requirements with respect to taxpayer data and
imposes penalties for unlawful disclosures of this information. Any individual who
unlawfully discloses confidential taxpayer information should be held accountable
under the law.
Having spent more than 3 decades in the Inspector General community—a sub-
stantial part of which was in the DoD IG’s law enforcement arm, I appreciate the
critical importance of holding criminal wrongdoers accountable. Throughout my ca-
reer, my investigations have resulted in successful criminal prosecutions and civil
penalties and fines. If confirmed, I commit to you that I will continue to vigorously
investigate potential violations of law within the purview of Treasury’s Office of In-
spector General to help ensure that individuals who break the law are held account-
able.
Question. As a current Inspector General, does it strike you as surprising or
alarming that it took over 2 years for the ProPublica leaker, Charles Littlejohn, to
be charged for his crimes? Why or why not?
Answer. I believe this government functions best when there is robust, rigorous,
and timely oversight of alleged waste, fraud, and abuse. The American people and
Congress deserve transparency and accountability from their government agencies,
and IG offices have a responsibility to act expeditiously to deliver clarity and pro-
vide answers as promptly as possible.
From my time in the Inspector General community, I know that investigation
timelines can vary substantially. For example, complex investigations that involve
a large number of parties and require substantial forensic analysis can take longer
to conduct, but it is critically important that these investigations be thorough and
comprehensive so that no one escapes accountability. Throughout my career, I have
always prioritized being both timely and thorough in my work, and, if confirmed,
I will ensure that Treasury’s Office of Inspector General conducts its investigations
in this manner.
Question. If you were to be confirmed to this position and there were to be another
incident of illegal IRS data disclosure during your tenure, do you commit to inves-
tigating the matter as promptly as possible and providing both majority and minor-
ity staff of this committee with monthly updates regarding the investigation, ‘‘yes’’
37
or ‘‘no’’? If you answer is ‘‘no,’’ please explain and provide an alternative periodic
update schedule that you commit to maintain if this issue were to arise.
Answer. I deeply respect the important oversight role of Congress and, having
spent my career in the IG community, understand that Congress can be an impor-
tant partner to IG offices. I recognize that Congress requires timely information
from the executive branch, including IG offices, in order to conduct its work, and,
if confirmed, I will ensure that me and my team regularly engage with this com-
mittee on a bipartisan basis to provide timely and accurate responses to your ques-
tions.
With respect to unlawful disclosures of taxpayer information, it is my under-
standing that TIGTA has jurisdiction over these and other Internal Revenue Service
matters. However, if confirmed to lead Treasury’s Office of Inspector General, I will
be a close partner to TIGTA and will certainly raise your concerns about the secu-
rity of taxpayer data with TIGTA’s leadership.
Question. Do you agree with the Supreme Court’s holding in Americans for Pros-
perity vs. Bonta, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? If your answer is ‘‘no,’’ please explain.
Answer. A key responsibility of OIGs is to ensure that the government agencies
they oversee comply with both statutes and applicable judicial holdings. In exe-
cuting this responsibility, OIG employees must always act independently and impar-
tially, regardless of their personal views on the state of the law. If confirmed, I
would be happy to meet with you to discuss how Treasury’s Office of Inspector Gen-
eral ensures that the Department adheres to legal requirements imposed on it by
statute and case law.
Question. Do you believe that charitable giving serves a valuable role in society
and existing laws regarding illegal disclosure of charitable donor information should
be vigorously enforced, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? If your answer is ‘‘no,’’ please explain.
Answer. While I certainly agree that charitable giving serves a valuable role in
society, if confirmed, I would need to look into this issue and the role of Treasury’s
Office of Inspector General in this space vis-à-vis TIGTA. It is my understanding
that TIGTA has jurisdiction over Internal Revenue Service matters, including un-
lawful disclosures of taxpayer information. If confirmed, I commit to working with
you and your staff regarding your interest in this issue.
Question. On May 14, 2024, I introduced S. 4326, the Protecting Charitable Giving
Act, with Senator Lankford. I am attaching a copy of that legislation to these ques-
tions for your reference.
In your opinion as a lay person, do you support this legislation, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? If
your answer is ‘‘no,’’ please explain. Note that this question asks your opinion as
a lay person and does not ask how you would approach any kind of recommendation
if you were to be confirmed to this position.
Answer. A key function of an Inspector General is to ensure that laws, as enacted,
are being complied with. In fulfilling this duty, an IG must always act in an impar-
tial and unbiased manner, without showing preference towards a particular policy
position or proposed legislation. If confirmed, I commit that I will carry out my du-
ties impartially and independent of any personal policy views, as I have done
throughout my long career in the IG community.
Question. As you know, my Republican colleagues and I are concerned about the
alarming incidents of fraud in the various COVID pandemic relief programs. We
want to ensure that taxpayer dollars were used efficiently and effectively, and that
fraudsters are identified and brought to justice. I understand that pandemic fraud
as a whole is still under investigation. The Department of the Treasury Inspector
General has jurisdiction over the CARES Act’s Coronavirus Relief Fund (CRF) and
the American Rescue Plan Act’s State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF)
program. Both were significant sums of money given to States and localities to use
for a broad range 1 of purposes.2 I am interested in learning the answers to the fol-
lowing two questions:
How much money from each fund that was improperly spent by localities has
been recouped?
1 See, e.g., https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/CRF-Guidance-Federal-Register_2021-
00827.pdf.
2 See, e.g., https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-state-local-and-
tribal-governments/state-and-local-fiscal-recovery-funds.
38
What steps are being taken in terms of audits and investigations? For example,
how many audits and /or investigations are active and what is their status?
If you are confirmed, do you commit to providing my staff, along with the majority
and minority committee staffs, a briefing on the above requests within 60 days of
taking office, ‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’? If your answer is ‘‘no,’’ please provide an alternative
time frame to which you are willing to commit.
Answer. Throughout my career, I have seen how well-executed OIG initiatives can
detect and deter fraud and abuse and return millions of dollars of ill-gotten gains
to the government. My work over the past 3 decades has entailed uncovering elabo-
rate fraud schemes, including one investigation that resulted in the largest health
care fraud recovery in our Nation’s history at the time. If confirmed as Treasury
Inspector General, I commit that investigating fraud will be a top priority for the
office.
Because I am not currently in Treasury’s Office of Inspector General, I do not
know the answers to your questions above, but I will look into these issues prompt-
ly, if I am confirmed. Further, if confirmed, I commit to working with you and other
members of the committee concerning your interest in pandemic relief programs. I
believe it is important for IGs to be close partners to Congress, and I know this is
an issue in which there is significant congressional interest.
----
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSE E. JENKINS, NOMINATED TO BE
A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Good morning, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and other members of
the Finance Committee. Thank you for holding this hearing to consider my nomina-
tion to serve on the United States Tax Court. I’m also grateful to the committee
staff for their efforts throughout this process. I appreciate the opportunity to be here
today, accompanied by my parents, Antonio Jenkins-Lara and Rose Jenkins, and my
husband, Daniel Horner, whose encouragement and support has been unwavering.
I would also like to thank my many mentors and other colleagues throughout my
career who have taught and challenged me to be the best tax attorney that I can
be and provided me the opportunities that have led to me being here today. And
I am grateful to the President for nominating me and providing me the chance, if
confirmed, to serve the tax system of which I have been a part my entire career.
I have had a variety of roles in the tax system and have always been guided by
a drive to make sense of the tax laws and apply them in a principled manner befit-
ting our system of voluntary tax compliance. I have worked with taxpayers strug-
gling to get their arms around the tax consequences of messy facts that often came
about as a result of simply living their lives and operating their businesses. And
I have worked with dedicated public servants who work zealously to ensure that not
only the letter but the spirit of the law is followed. Ultimately, the complexity of
the tax laws, the broad and uncertain scope of facts that may be relevant to any
particular question, and the inherent tension between the IRS and taxpayers mean
that there are many cases in which they do not see eye to eye. That makes the mis-
sion of the Tax Court so critical. By providing a national forum for the expeditious
resolution of disputes, based on a careful consideration of the merits of each case,
it instills confidence in taxpayers that they will receive a fair hearing. And the Tax
Court’s efforts to ensure a uniform interpretation of the code provide certainty and
stability that benefit not only the taxpayers that appear before it, but all stake-
holders in the tax system at large.
In addition to allowing me to develop a deep understanding of particular areas
of the tax law, my career has given me an appreciation of the differing perspectives,
not only between the government and taxpayers, but also among different types of
taxpayers. That understanding, as well as the experience engaging in the collabo-
rative, analytical, and decision-making processes entailed, will benefit me as a mem-
ber of the Tax Court working collegially to ensure uniform application of the law.
More broadly, my experiences throughout my career have instilled in me a propen-
sity for close, careful listening and thorough, open-minded analysis and discussion,
which are critical to fair and impartial judgment. If confirmed, I commit to main-
taining these principles in service of the Tax Court’s critical mission. I look forward
to answering the committee’s questions.
39
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Rose Elena Jenkins.
2. Position to which nominated: Judge, United States Tax Court.
3. Date of nomination: February 1, 2024.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: December 29, 1984; Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband’s name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, dates attended,
degree received, and date degree granted):
Clements High School.
Attended August 1997–May 1998.
No degree conferred.
Hightower High School.
Attended August 1998–May 2001.
High school diploma conferred May 2001.
Stanford University.
Attended September 2001–August 2005.
BA—Economics, German Studies—conferred June 12, 2005.
MA—International Education Administration and Policy Analysis—conferred
September 29, 2005.
Bucerius University.
Attended September–December 2007 as part of law school study abroad pro-
gram.
No degree conferred.
The University of Texas at Austin.
Attended August 2005–May 2008.
JD—conferred May 17, 2008.
New York University.
Attended September 2009–December 2011.
Executive LLM—conferred January 23, 2012.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the title or descrip-
tion of job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment for
each job):
Student Supervisor—Stanford University Residential Services—Stanford, CA—
June–August 2005.
VITA Site Manager—Foundation Communities, Community Tax Centers—Aus-
tin, TX—January–April 2006.
Summer Associate—Vinson and Elkins LLP—Houston, TX—May–July 2006.
Law Clerk—Texas Association of School Boards—Austin, TX—July 2006–May
2007.
VITA Site Manager—Foundation Communities, Community Tax Centers—Aus-
tin, TX—January–April 2007.
Summer Associate—Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP—New York,
NY—May–July 2007.
Summer Associate—Vinson and Elkins LLP—Houston, TX—July–August 2007.
VITA Site Manager—Foundation Communities, Community Tax Centers—Aus-
tin, TX—January–April 2008.
40
Tax Associate—Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP—New York,
NY—September 2008–January. 2013.
Editor/Author, State and Local Tax—Thomson Reuters—New York, NY—Janu-
ary 2013–November 2013.
Attorney, Branch 2, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International)—Internal
Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel—Washington, DC—November 2013–
August 2017.
Senior Counsel, Branch 2, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International)—In-
ternal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel—Washington, DC—August
2017–June 2019.
Special Counsel, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International)—Internal
Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel—Washington, DC—June 2019–Feb-
ruary 2020.
Managing Director, Washington National Tax-International Tax—KPMG—
Washington, DC—February 2020–August 2021.
Senior Attorney Advisor—The Tax Law Center at NYU Law—New York, NY
(working remotely from Washington, DC)—August 2021–January 2023.
Attorney, Branch 2, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Adminis-
tration)—Internal Revenue Service, Office of Chief Counsel—Washington, DC—
January 2023–present.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory, consultative, hon-
orary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local gov-
ernments held since college, including dates, other than those listed above):
None.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, nonvoting, etc.), proprietor,
agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partner-
ship, other business enterprise, or educational or other institution):
None.
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as any current
and former offices held in professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, char-
itable, and other organizations dating back to college, including dates for these
memberships and offices):
Professional
New York State Bar—2009–present.
New York State Bar Association and New York State Bar Association Tax Sec-
tion—2020–2022.
New York State Bar Association Tax Section Executive Committee—2022.
Scholarly
Texas Journal of Women and the Law—2006–2008.
Civic/Charitable
Stanford Alumni Association—2005–present.
Manhattan Institute—∼2008–2009.
Friends of the National Zoo—2014–2022.
Capitol Hill Restoration Society—2015–present.
Studio Theater Friends with Benefits—2016–2017.
Martin House—2019–2020.
Round House Inner Circle—2020–2021.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate dating back to the
age of 18.
None.
41
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees, currently and during the last 10 years prior
to the date of your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization,
political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for
the past 10 years prior to the date of your nomination.
None.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, hon-
orary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievement received since the age of 18):
Research/Academic
Chappell-Lougee Scholarship granted by Stanford Undergraduate Research Op-
portunities in 2003.
Fulbright Scholarship offered but not accepted in 2005.
‘‘With honors’’ recognition upon conferral of JD from The University of Texas
at Austin.
Professional
Chief Counsel National Recognition for Superior Achievement Award in Legal
Research and Writing in 2014.
Department of the Treasury Legal Research and Writing Award in 2014.
Associate Chief Counsel (International) Quick Hit Award in 2016.
Department of the Treasury Certificate of Appreciation in 2016.
Chief Counsel National Recognition for Superior Achievement in Legal Research
and Writing in 2016.
Commissioner’s Award in 2017.
Department of the Treasury Legal Team of the Year in 2018.
Chief Counsel National Outstanding Published/Technical Guidance Award in
2019.
Commissioner’s Award in 2019.
Deputy Commissioner for Services and Enforcement Award in 2021.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and hyperlinks (as applica-
ble) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, or other published materials you
have written):
IRS Materials Co-Authored with Other IRS and Department of the Treas-
ury Colleagues
Notice 2014–51, Section 1298(f) Reporting Requirements for U.S. Persons that
Hold Stock of a Passive Foreign Investment Company that is Marked to Market
Under Section 475 or Another Chapter 1 Code Provision Other Than Section
1296, September 29, 2014, available at https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-
40_IRB#NOT-2014-51.
Notice 2014–52, Rules Regarding Inversions and Related Transactions, October
14, 2014, available at https://www.irs.gov/irb/2014-42_IRB#NOT-2014-52.
Chief Counsel Attorney Memorandum 2015–001, Earnings and Profits Con-
sequences of Section 951(a) Income Inclusions, available at https://www.
irs.gov/pub/irs-counsel/AM2015-001.pdf.
United States Property Held by Controlled Foreign Corporations in Trans-
actions Involving Partnerships; Rents and Royalties Derived in the Active Con-
duct of a Trade or Business, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/docu-
ments/2015/10/29/2015-27604/united-states-property-held-by-controlled-for-
eign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
TD 9733, September 2, 2015, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2015/09/02/2015-21574/united-states-property-held-by-con-
trolled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
42
TD 9733 Preamble Correction, October 29, 2015, available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/29/2015-27604/united-states-
property-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
TD 9733 Correction, October 29, 2015, available at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/29/2015-27603/united-states-prop-
erty-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
REG–155164–09, September 2, 2015, available at https://www.federal
register.gov/documents/2015/09/02/2015-21572/united-states-property-
held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
REG–155164–09 Preamble Correction, October 29, 2015, available at
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2015/10/29/2015-27601/
united-states-property-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-trans-
actions-involving.
TD 9792, November 3, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2016/11/03/2016-26425/united-states-property-held-by-con-
trolled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
TD 9792 Preamble Correction, December 28, 2016, available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31364/united-states-
property-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
TD 9792 Correction, December 28, 2016, available at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31411/united-states-prop-
erty-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-in-transactions-involving.
United States Property Held by Controlled Foreign Corporations Through
Partnerships With Special Allocations
REG–114734–16, November 3, 2016, available at https://www.federal
register.gov/documents/2016/11/03/2016-26424/united-states-property-
held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-through-partnerships-with-special.
REG–114734–16 Correction, December 28, 2016, available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/12/28/2016-31358/united-states-
property-held-by-controlled-foreign-corporations-through-partnerships-with-
special.
REG–122387–16, Treatment of Related Person Factoring Income; Certain In-
vestments in United States Property; and Stock Redemptions Through Related
Corporations, November 3, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/
documents/2016/11/03/2016-26423/treatment-of-related-person-factoring-in-
come-certain-investments-in-united-states-property-and-stock.
Notice 2017–55, Treatment Under Section 956(c) of Certain Property Tempo-
rarily Stored in the United States Following Hurricane Irma or Hurricane
Maria, October 16, 2017, available at https://www.irs.gov/irb/2017-42_IRB
#NOT-2017-55.
Notice 2017–68, Treatment Under Section 956(c) of Certain Receivables Fol-
lowing Hurricane Irma or Hurricane Maria, November 13, 2017, available at
https://www.irs.gov/irb/2017-46_IRB#NOT-2017-68.
Inversions and Related Transactions
TD 9761, April 8, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/docu-
ments/2016/04/08/2016-07300/inversions-and-related-transactions.
REG–135734–14, April 8, 2016, available at https://www.federalregister.
gov/documents/2016/04/08/2016-07299/inversions-and-related-trans-
actions.
REG–135734–14 Preamble Correction, June 2, 2016, available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/02/2016-13015/inversions-
and-related-transactions-correction.
TD 9761 Preamble Correction, June 23, 2016, available at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2016/06/23/2016-14648/inversions-and-re-
lated-transactions-correction.
TD 9761 Correction, June 23, 2016, available at https://www.federal
register.gov/documents/2016/06/23/2016-14649/inversions-and-related-
transactions-correction.
43
TD 9761 Correction, July 19, 2016, available at https://www.federal
register.gov/documents/2016/07/19/2016-16470/inversions-and-related-
transactions-correction.
TD 9834, July 12, 2018, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/docu-
ments/2018/07/12/2018-14693/inversions-and-related-transactions.
REG–125135–15, Ownership Attribution for Purposes of Determining Whether
a Person Is Related to a Controlled Foreign Corporation; Rents Derived in the
Active Conduct of a Trade or Business, May 20, 2019, available at https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/05/20/2019-10464/ownership-attri-
bution-for-purposes-of-determining-whether-a-person-is-related-to-a-controlled.
Amount Determined Under Section 956 for Corporate United States Share-
holders
TD 9859, May 23, 2019, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/docu-
ments/2019/05/23/2019-10749/amount-determined-under-section-956-for-
corporate-united-states-shareholders.
Correction to TD 9859, June 25, 2019, available at https://www.
federalregister.gov/documents/2019/06/25/2019-13489/amount-deter-
mined-under-section-956-for-corporate-united-states-shareholders-correction.
REG–114540–18, November 5, 2018, available at https://www.federal
register.gov/documents/2018/11/05/2018-24140/amount-determined-under
-section-956-for-corporate-united-states-shareholders.
REG–105474–18, Guidance on Passive Foreign Investment Companies, July 11,
2019, available at https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/07/11/
2019-12030/guidance-on-passive-foreign-investment-companies.
Regulatory Comment Letters Co-Authored with Colleagues or Other Tax
Practitioners
New York State Bar Association Tax Section, Report No. 1448—Report on Pro-
posed Regulations Providing Guidance Related to the Foreign Tax Credit, Feb-
ruary 9, 2021, available at https://nysba.org/app/uploads/2021/02/Report-
1448.pdf.
The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, Additional Recommendations for Guidance
on the Corporate Alternative Minimum Tax, December 6, 2022, available at
https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Tax%20Law%20Center%20Com
ment%20on%20CAMT%20%2812-6-2022%29_508.pdf.
KPMG Publications Co-Authored with KPMG Colleagues
KPMG report: Analysis of final FDII regulations_Tax reform, July 31, 2020,
available at https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2020/07/tnf-
kpmg-report-analysis-final-fdii-regulations-july31-2020.pdf.
KPMG report: Analysis of final and proposed regulations, high-tax exception
under GILTI and subpart F, August 13, 2020, available at https://as-
sets.kpmg.com/content/dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2020/08/tnf-kpmg-report-gilti-hte-
aug13-2020.pdf.
KPMG report: Initial impressions of final and proposed foreign tax credit regu-
lations, October 5, 2020, available at https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/
kpmg/us/pdf/2020/10/tnf-kpmg-report-ftc-regulations-oct5-2020.pdf.
KPMG report: Summary and initial analysis of Pillar Two Blueprint, October
12, 2020, available at http://www.in.kpmg.com/TaxFlashNews-INT/KPMG-re-
port-Summary-and-initial-analysis-of-Pillar-Two.pdf.
Asset managers and BEPS 2.0—Stakeholders respond to the latest proposals,
April 2021, available at https://kpmg.com/xx/en/home/insights/2021/04/
asset-managers-and-beps-2-0-stakeholders-respond-to-the-latest-proposals.html.
Final and proposed regulations, passive foreign investment company (PFIC)
rules, January 15, 2021, available at https://assets.kpmg.com/content/dam/
kpmg/us/pdf/2021/01/tnf-kpmg-report-final-proposed-regs-pfic-rules-jan15-
2021.pdf.
KPMG report: Permanent establishment-related considerations, employees
working remotely, June 14, 2021, available at https://assets.kpmg.com/content/
dam/kpmg/us/pdf/2021/06/21257.pdf.
44
Other Tax-Related Published Writings
As co-author—Unidentified portions of Checkpoint Catalyst—see https://
tax.thomsonreuters.com/en/checkpoint/catalyst/authors#I-L.
The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, Build Back Better and the Cycle of Tax Law
Development, March 24, 2022, available at https://medium.com/@taxlawcenter
/build-back-better-and-the-cycle-of-tax-law-development-f6f476b4a772.
The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, The Gnarly Business of Taxing Partnership-
Held Foreign Corporations’ Income, May 23, 2022, available at https://me-
dium.com/@taxlawcenter/the-gnarly-business-of-taxing-partnership-held-foreign-
corporations-income-52b8ae165b21.
As co-author—The Hamilton Project and The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, Six
Economic Facts on International Corporate Taxation, June 2022, available at
https://www.hamiltonproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Six_Facts_on_
International_Corporate_Taxation_-_Final.pdf.
As co-author—The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, Limit the Use of Abusive
Valuation Discounts in the Transfer Tax System, October 21, 2022, https://
www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Limit%20the%20Use%20of%20Abusive%20
Valuation%20Discounts%20in%20the%20Transfer%20Tax%20System.pdf.
As co-author—The Tax Law Center at NYU Law, Strengthening the Genera-
tion-Skipping Transfer Tax to Address Dynasty Trusts, November 2, 2022,
available at https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Strengthen%20the%2
0Generation-Skipping%20Transfer%20Tax%20to%20Address%20Dynasty%20
Trusts.pdf.
The Stanford Daily Articles
Student-initiated courses present new topics, February 14, 2002, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2002/02/14?page=1§ion=MODSMD_
ARTICLE5#article.
Water, Water Everywhere: Spring Trip Looks at California’s Precious H2O,
April 15, 2002, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2002/04/15?
page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE10#article.
The wall at Arrillaga allows members of the Stanford Climbing Wall Club to
Keep on Rockin’, October 21, 2002, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.
com/2002/10/21?page=6§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE19#article.
Cantor Arts Center to debut student guides, October 29, 2002, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2002/10/29?page=2§ion=MODSMD_
ARTICLE9#article.
Speaking their Language: Students interpret for non-English speakers at the
Stanford Medical Center, November 8, 2002, available at https://archives.stan
forddaily.com/2002/11/08?page=6§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE18#article.
Cult of the Red Bull: A look at caffeine consumption at Stanford, November 14,
2002, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2002/11/14?page=2&sec
tion=MODSMD_ARTICLE8#article.
Students celebrate Ramadan away from home, November 21, 2002, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2002/11/21?page=8§ion=MODSMD_AR
TICLE18#article.
Take a Byte Out of Learning: Computers in the Classroom, January 23, 2003,
available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2003/01/23?page=1§ion=
MODSMD_ARTICLE5#article.
‘‘Mitzvah Day’’ Sparks Volunteerism: Encouraging service across faiths, Feb-
ruary 25, 2003, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2003/02/25?
page=10§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE30#article.
Despite busyness, students find time for . . . Spirituality on the Farm, April
1, 2003, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2003/04/01?page=1&
section=MODSMD_ARTICLE7#article.
New phone-a-thon greets Class of 2007, April 17, 2003, available at https://ar-
chives.stanforddaily.com/2003/04/17?page=2§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE8#
article.
45
Freshmen dean begins campaign of kindness, May 6, 2003, available at https://
archives.stanforddaily.com/2003/05/06?page=2§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE
13#article.
A safer, cheaper option for rocket fuel . . . Rocket scientists make candle wax
into fuel, February 1, 2005, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/
2005/02/01?page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE16#article.
Bacteria-powered cars? Researchers investigate hydrogen-producing bacteria,
February 8, 2005, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/02/
08?page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE15#article.
Tension, Sinus Migraine: More than just a pain in the head, February 24, 2005,
available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/02/24?page=5§ion
=MODSMD_ARTICLE20#article.
Green Dorm Project team plans to bring eco-friendly dorm to campus, March
1, 2005, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/03/01?page=3&
section=MODSMD_ARTICLE16#article.
Biodesign programs promote student biotech startups, March 9, 2005, available
at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/03/09?page=11§ion=MODSMD
_ARTICLE30#article.
Student group offers Web design workshops, April 5, 2005, available at https://
archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/04/05?page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE
17#article.
A breeding ground for start-ups . . . , April 12, 2005, available at https://ar-
chives.stanforddaily.com/2005/04/12?page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE15#
article.
The Ultimate Class Project: Making the Exhibit, May 4, 2005, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/05/04?page=3§ion=MODSMD_AR
TICLE16#article.
Stanford, WTO partnership digitizes documents, May 10, 2005, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/05/10?page=3§ion=MODSMD_AR
TICLE14#article.
Exotics in Eden? Alan Burdick discusses why non-native species don’t always
spell doom, June 1, 2005, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/
06/01?page=18§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE35#article.
Racing against the clock without a driver, June 1, 2005, available at https://
archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/06/01?page=7§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE
21#article.
Bay Area serves as startup breeding ground, June 10, 2005, available at
https://archives.stanforddaily.com/2005/06/10?page=8§ion=MODSMD_AR
TICLE20#article.
Greenwell departs for S.F State, July 14, 2005, available at https://archives.
stanforddaily.com/2005/07/14?page=3§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE4#article.
Students Work to Protect Passwords: Computer Science Researchers Hope to
Stump Hackers, August 4, 2005, available at https://archives.stanforddaily.
com/2005/08/04?page=10§ion=MODSMD_ARTICLE20#article.
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) you have
delivered during the past 5 years which are on topics relevant to the position
for which you have been nominated, including dates):
I have not given any formal speeches. I have participated in the following public
panel discussions concerning tax but had at most partial responsibility for the
written presentations, if any:
International Tax Institute presentation on recent IRS guidance, June 11,
2019—I participated in this presentation as part of my position at the IRS,
Office of Associate Chief Counsel (International), and upon departing my
position there in February 2020, I ceased to have access to materials from
that position.
KPMG presentation concerning considerations in making a section 962 elec-
tion, September 25, 2020—I participated in this presentation as part of my
position at KPMG, and upon departing my position there in August 2021,
I ceased to have access to materials from that position.
46
District of Columbia Bar Taxation Community presentation concerning
GILTI high-tax election, October 22, 2020—I participated in this presen-
tation as part of my position at KPMG, and upon departing my position
there in August 2021, I ceased to have access to materials from that posi-
tion.
USA Branch of the International Fiscal Association 49th Annual Con-
ference presentation concerning foreign tax credit rules, April 23, 2021—
materials available at https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.ifausa.org/resource/
resmgr/conference_2021/20210423_1400_tangles_and_tr.pdf.
Tax Policy Center, The Prescription: Fiscal Policy for Today’s Economy, De-
cember 23, 2021—video available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_
l4UYgMA9DI.
New York State Bar Association 2022 Law Student Meet and Greets, Feb-
ruary 17, 2022—No materials were prepared for this informal discussion.
DC Bar Tax Community 2022 Tax Legislative and Regulatory Update Con-
ference presentation concerning outbound tax developments, May 5, 2022—
I participated in this presentation as part of my position at The Tax Law
Center at NYU Law, and upon departing my position there in January
2023, I ceased to have access to materials from that position.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to serve in the position
to which you have been nominated):
My 15 years of experience in the field of tax law have allowed me to develop
a deep understanding of our Nation’s tax system from a variety of perspectives
that I would bring to my role as a United States Tax Court judge, if confirmed.
During law school, I worked at Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) cen-
ters, which exposed me to the experiences of lower-income individual taxpayers
as I worked to help educate them on their tax obligations and file their tax re-
turns. My public service since then has given me an opportunity to branch out
and handle an array of matters affecting the implementation of tax laws, in-
cluding administrative law and procedural issues that underlie the Court’s work
with all taxpayers. I was afforded this opportunity as well during my work at
the Tax Law Center at New York University School of Law, where I focused
on a broad spectrum of issues, including making the tax system more trans-
parent and inclusive, as well as technical tax issues. More than 5 years in pri-
vate practice, both at law and accounting firms, also provided me insight into
large, sophisticated taxpayers with complex returns and tax issues. Similarly,
during much of my time working for IRS Chief Counsel, I focused on inter-
national tax issues, including advising on examinations, litigation, and develop-
ment of legal guidance following the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
This array of experiences has allowed me to see firsthand how tax law affects
everyone, from low-income families to the largest businesses. This broad under-
standing of the tax landscape and my deep knowledge of tax law would fruit-
fully inform my work as a Tax Court judge.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future benefit arrange-
ments) with your present employers, business firms, associations, or organiza-
tions if you are confirmed by the Senate? If not, provide details.
Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government?
If so, provide details.
No
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ your
services in any capacity after you leave government service? If so, provide de-
tails.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out your full term
or until the next presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, explain.
I expect to serve out my full term.
47
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
personal relationships, including spousal or family employment, which could in-
volve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been nomi-
nated.
My father, Antonio Jenkins-Lara, has a consulting business that includes con-
sulting on FATCA and other U.S. tax-related issues. His clients could poten-
tially have matters that would be litigated in Tax Court.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you
have had during the last 10 years (prior to the date of your nomination), wheth-
er for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any
way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to which
you have been nominated.
I have provided tax advice to clients of KPMG that could potentially result in
positions that would be litigated in Tax Court. Similarly, as an employee of the
IRS, I have engaged in rulemaking activity and advised on examination and
other administrative activity that could potentially be implicated in litigation in
Tax Court.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date of your nomina-
tion) in which you have engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influ-
encing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the ad-
ministration and execution of law or public policy. Activities performed as an
employee of the Federal Government need not be listed.
Both as a member of the New York State Bar Association Tax Section and as
an employee of the Tax Law Center at NYU Law, I participated in drafting for-
mal comment submissions and engaging in other commentary intended to affect
the administration of tax law. See, e.g., Regulatory Comment Letters and Other
Tax-Related Published Writings under Part A.15 above.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Provide the committee
with two copies of any trust or other agreements.)
If confirmed, I would take whatever steps were necessary and appropriate after
carefully and diligently applying 28 U.S.C. section 455, Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, and other relevant canons, provisions and
guidance, including recusal.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been investigated, disciplined,
or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional conduct before any
court, administrative agency (e.g., an Inspector General’s office), professional as-
sociation, disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any
time? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless of the out-
come.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of any Federal, State,
county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic
offense? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part
of any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of
any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
No.
48
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavor-
able, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.
None.
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may
be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide such information
as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ROSE E. JENKINS
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Question. If confirmed as a judge to the United States Tax Court, you will be re-
sponsible for interpreting how our tax laws apply to a wide variety of plaintiffs—
everything from multinational corporations with large legal teams to small busi-
nesses and individuals who appear before court without counsel.
What role would you give to legislative intent, conference report language, or
statements from members of Congress as you interpret and apply regulations affect-
ing tax law?
Answer. If confirmed, in addition to applying any binding precedent, I would
apply established methods of interpretation to determine the meaning of a statute
or regulation, including by starting with a careful reading of the plain text of the
provision and consideration of a rule’s place in the broader context of the Internal
Revenue Code and Treasury regulations. In addition to considering whether certain
canons of construction would be helpful, I would also consider whether it would be
appropriate to take into account legislative history in interpreting the rule. I believe
that, to the extent legislative history provides insight into legislative intent, such
intent can reasonably inform a decision between multiple textually plausible inter-
pretations, though it cannot override clear statutory text.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MIKE CRAPO
Question. In Fiscal Year 2023, there were around 22,000 cases filed and 31,500
closed at the Tax Court. That was the second-least amount of cases filed in the last
7 years and the second-most cases closed in the same time span.
If confirmed, how will you prioritize providing fair and impartial decisions while
also managing your caseload efficiently?
Answer. The Tax Court function of providing a national forum for the expeditious
resolution of disputes and careful consideration of the merits of each case serves an
important role of fostering trust in our system of voluntary tax compliance. If con-
firmed, I would commit to consider all issues and arguments presented by peti-
tioners with an open mind, in order to provide them the fair and impartial hearing
that they deserve. I would also seek to provide them the expediency they deserve
by encouraging cooperation between the parties and considering opportunities to de-
cide cases or issues without the need for a trial.
Question. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel is responsible for representing the gov-
ernment in matters before the Tax Court, and is thereby involved in every dispute
before the court. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that this close relation-
ship may lead to unjust outcomes.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure you remain fair and impartial to all par-
ties, and ensure you will not provide special preferences?
Answer. I believe providing a fair and impartial hearing to petitioners before the
Tax Court is critical to providing all taxpayers certainty and confidence in the tax
system. Over my career, I’ve analyzed tax law on behalf of a variety of types of
49
stakeholders with different interests in the tax system. I think this gives me a par-
ticularly well-rounded view of the tax system that would enhance my ability to re-
main neutral as a Tax Court judge, if confirmed. My diversity of experience together
with my established practice of independent thought would bolster my commitment
and propensity toward fairness and impartiality.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES
Question. As of April 2024, the U.S. Tax Court had a backlog of 750 conservation
easement cases. Last Congress, my bill, the Charitable Conservation Easement Pro-
gram Integrity Act, was signed into law to provide clarity on a number of these
cases. Since then, a number of cases have been decided with differing outcomes, set-
ting various precedents, and a large backlog remains.
If confirmed to the U.S. Tax Court, how will you approach these cases and help
clear the backlog?
Answer. In recent years, the Tax Court has seen an increase in its case load due,
in part, to an increase in petitions in complex, fact-intensive cases, like conservation
easement cases. If confirmed, I would endeavor to support the Tax Court mission
of providing expeditious resolution of cases in order to address the case load and
provide certainty to taxpayers as quickly as possible, taking into account applicable
precedent and legislation. I would seek to minimize resolution time by encouraging
cooperation between the parties in all phases of the proceedings. I would also
strongly consider opportunities to decide cases or issues based on motions and stipu-
lations, in order to minimize the amount of time needed to wait for and conduct
trials. And, as the Tax Court has already done in some conservation easement cases,
I would consider ways of narrowing the scope of factual review required in cases
with parallel or otherwise related issues.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG
Question. The Tax Court plays a critical role in interpreting tax law and resolving
disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. As a nominee for this Article I judgeship,
you will be responsible for hearing a wide range of cases.
Can you elaborate on your approach to applying the law impartially and ensuring
consistent application of tax code to all taxpayers, regardless of their background?
Answer. I believe that the Tax Court mission of uniform interpretation of the In-
ternal Revenue Code serves an important function in society by providing all tax-
payers certainty, stability, and confidence in the tax system. If confirmed as a judge
on the United States Tax Court, my approach to cases would be one of respect for
established precedent and a commitment to consider all issues and arguments pre-
sented by petitioners, regardless of their background, with an open mind. From the
variety of experiences I have had in my career, I have learned the importance of
considering the perspectives from which different parties may approach an issue
and listening carefully and engaging actively to ensure open and clear communica-
tion.
Question. Given the tremendous backlog of cases currently facing the U.S. Tax
Court, what specific strategies would you implement to expedite case resolution?
Answer. If confirmed, I would place emphasis on the expeditious resolution of
cases in order to address the Tax Court case load and support its mission. I would
encourage cooperation between the parties in all phases of the proceedings. I would
also strongly consider opportunities to decide cases or issues based on motions and
stipulations, in order to minimize the amount of time needed to wait for and conduct
trials. And I would keep a perpetual eye on efficiency in my courtroom and my
chambers.
Question. Would you consider increasing the number of hours that the U.S. Tax
Court is open to hear cases?
Answer. If confirmed, I would consider, based on my experience and learning as
a judge, and in consultation with the Chief Judge, ways to enhance productivity,
taking into account applicable laws, regulations, and systems, as well as the staffing
of the Tax Court.
50
Question. How do you envision these strategies mitigating the harmful effects that
prolonged case backlogs have on taxpayers awaiting decisions?
Answer. Taxpayers deserve certainty as quickly as possible both in order to mini-
mize the financial costs relating to prolonged litigation and so that they can go on
with their lives. I expect that a full bench of judges on the Tax Court working to-
ward efficient adjudication of petitions will help to continue to mitigate the negative
effects on taxpayers of the recent increase in the Tax Court case load.
Question. The lack of access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) service has been a significant concern for many taxpayers. It often takes
an expensive courier service or an in-person visit for a taxpayer to access records
on their case.
What measures would you propose to enhance the accessibility and transparency
of court records through PACER?
Answer. It is important for the Tax Court to have an electronic record system to
ensure accessibility for petitioners and to foster efficiency in managing the court’s
case load. The Tax Court has, in recent years, improved accessibility and trans-
parency through its DAWSON case management system. From public statements,
my understanding is that the Tax Court continues to consider possibilities for en-
hancements while taking into account the need to protect personally identifiable in-
formation. If confirmed, I would look forward to learning about the Tax Court’s ef-
forts and considering how to further and balance the important goals of accessi-
bility, transparency, and privacy protection.
Question. How do you believe improved access to these records would impact tax-
payer service and trust in the judicial process?
Answer. Electronic access to records related to a taxpayer’s own case can facilitate
timely, effective participation with minimal burden and thus improve case manage-
ment and the experience of the taxpayer with the system. Broader electronic access
to court records can provide stakeholders throughout the system greater insight into
function and thinking of the court that can both facilitate enhanced administration
and foster increased trust in the legal process.
----
PREPARED STATEMENT OF ADAM B. LANDY, NOMINATED TO BE
A JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Thank you, Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and distinguished mem-
bers of the Finance Committee. Thank you for scheduling this hearing and proc-
essing my nomination.
Thank you to President Biden for nominating me to serve as a judge on the
United States Tax Court. I am humbled and honored by the opportunity to continue
to serve on the court, if confirmed.
Thank you to Congressman James E. Clyburn for his introduction this morning,
and to him and his staff for their support throughout this process. As native South
Carolinians, my family and I are grateful to the Congressman for his service to this
Nation and our beloved home State.
I acknowledge and thank my wife Courtney, who is my best friend, fiercest de-
fender, and ultimate cheerleader. My sons Brooks and Myles, whom I love so much,
are here today, and because of them, I strive to be the best version of myself daily.
My father Robert is watching remotely this morning, and I thank him for mod-
eling hard work and tenacity. I honor the memory of my mother Darlean, a former
public school educator, who instilled in me the importance of obtaining an education
and being there for people in their time of need. Whether it was taking my siblings
and me with her to deliver meals through the Meals on Wheels program or encour-
aging me to become involved with the United Way, she made sure we understood
the duty to give back to our community and to serve others.
To my siblings Erica, Marcus, and Jason, along with extended family members,
my mother and father-in-law, Major (Ret.) Ricardo and Dr. Diane Wingate, my
church family and friends who are watching remotely, thank you for your love, pray-
ers, and support. Finally, I would like to thank the Chief Judge of the Tax Court;
my fellow judicial officers on the Court; Anita Rizek, Legislative Counsel for the Tax
Court; and my former supervisors Erik Doerring, Nancy Gilmore, and Thomas
Mackinson, for their support during the public phase of this nomination process.
51
As a law student and young lawyer, I clerked for Judge J. Michelle Childs, now
a Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, but then
a judge on the South Carolina Circuit Court. I learned from Judge Childs the impor-
tance of evaluating the parties’ arguments thoroughly, conducting comprehensive re-
search to provide sound legal analysis, and administering justice with a calm tem-
perament. This experience is why I desired to become a judge. As a special trial
judge, I have strived daily to implement these traits of proper judicial temperament
and skill to competently serve the public.
Since concluding my legal education, I represented taxpayers and the IRS before
the Tax Court. As a tax lawyer, I acquired an understanding of the challenges tax-
payers and the IRS face while developing solid listening and communication skills,
strong research and writing skills, and good judgment. As a special trial judge, I
demonstrate proper traits of proper judicial temperament and skill in conducting
motions hearings and trials and resolving disputes through written orders and pub-
lished opinions. While the cases I will hear as a Tax Court judge will differ in con-
tent and complexity from my current role, I will bring my current and prior profes-
sional experiences to this new role, if confirmed, in adjudicating tax disputes in an
impartial and expeditious manner.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the committee, thank
you for your consideration. I am happy to answer any questions.
----
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Adam Brooks Landy.
2. Position to which nominated: Judge, United States Tax Court.
3. Date of nomination: February 1, 2024.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: April 28, 1982; Aiken, South Carolina.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband’s name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, dates attended,
degree received, and date degree granted):
South Aiken High School.
Aiken, South Carolina.
August 1996–May 2000.
High school diploma, May 2000.
University of South Carolina.
Columbia, South Carolina.
August 2000–May 2004.
Bachelor’s degree, Chemistry, May 2004.
University of South Carolina.
Columbia, South Carolina.
August 2004–May 2006.
Master’s degree, Sport & Entertainment Management, May 2006.
University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law.
Columbia, South Carolina.
August 2006–May 2009.
Juris Doctor, May 2009.
52
Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law.
Chicago, Illinois.
September 2009–May 2010.
LL.M, Taxation, May 2010.
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the title or descrip-
tion of job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment for
each job):
Adjunct Professor.
University of Baltimore School of Law.
1401 N. Charles Street.
Baltimore, Maryland 21201.
August 2022–May 2023; January 2024–present.
Special Trial Judge.
United States Tax Court.
400 Second Street, NW.
Washington, DC 20217.
December 2021–present.
Senior Attorney.
IRS Office of Chief Counsel.
Small Business/Self-Employed Division.
31 Hopkins Plaza, Suite 1320.
Baltimore, Maryland 21230.
August 2018–December 2021.
Senior Attorney.
IRS Office of Chief Counsel.
Small Business/Self-Employed Division.
100 First Street, Suite 1800.
San Francisco, California 94105.
August 2016–August 2018.
Associate Attorney.
McNair Law Firm, PA.
(The law firm merged with Burr and Forman, LLP, in 2019, with the resulting
firm being Burr and Forman).
1221 Main Street, Suite 1800.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
July 2010-August 2016.
Law Clerk.
Gergel, Nickles and Solomon, PA (now defunct law firm).
1519 Richland Street.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
February 2008–May 2008 and August 2008–May 2009.
Law Clerk.
The Honorable J. Michelle Childs.
South Carolina Judicial Department.
Richland County Judicial Center.
1701 Main Street.
Columbia, South Carolina 29201.
May 2008–August 2008.
Law Clerk.
Greenville County Attorney’s Office.
301 University Ridge, Suite 2400.
Greenville County Square.
Greenville, South Carolina 29601.
May 2007–August 2007.
Graduate Assistant.
University of South Carolina Athletics Department.
Rice Athletics Center.
1304 Heyward Street.
Columbia, South Carolina 29208.
August 2004–July 2006.
Equipment Manager.
Benedict College.
53
1600 Harden Street.
Columbia, South Carolina 29204.
July 2004–August 2006.
Student Assistant—Gamecock Club.
University of South Carolina Athletics Department.
1304 Heyward Street.
Columbia, South Carolina 29205.
January 2004–August 2004.
Student Worker.
R.C. McEntire Trucking, Inc.
2040 American Italian Way.
Columbia, South Carolina 29209.
May 2003–August 2003.
Recreation Department Assistant.
Mount Pleasant Recreation Department.
100 Ann Edwards Lane.
Mt. Pleasant, South Carolina 29464.
May 2002–August 2002.
Student Research Assistant.
University of South Carolina School of Medicine.
6311 Garners Ferry Road.
Columbia, South Carolina 29209.
May 2001–August 2001.
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory, consultative, hon-
orary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local gov-
ernments held since college, including dates, other than those listed above):
None.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, nonvoting, etc.), proprietor,
agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partner-
ship, other business enterprise, or educational or other institution):
Saluda Shoals Foundation Board, Director, 2015–2016 (approximate).
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as any current
and former offices held in professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, char-
itable, and other organizations dating back to college, including dates for these
memberships and offices):
Admissions:
South Carolina Bar, 2009–present.
United States Tax Court, 2010–present.
District of Columbia Bar, 2020–present.
Professional:
American Bar Association.
Association Member, 2006–present.
Delegate, House of Delegates, 2020–2023; 2016–2017.
Member, Coalition on Racial and Ethnic Justice, 2016–2019.
Member, Judicial Division—Lawyers Conference, 2020–2021.
Member, Judicial Division—National Conference of Federal Trial Judges,
2022–present.
Member, Section on Taxation, 2010–present.
Member, Standing Committee on Membership, 2019–2022.
Member, Standing Committee on Meetings and Travel, 2022–present.
American Constitution Society Member, 2020–2021 (approximate).
Black Law Students Association Member, 2006–2009.
Columbia, South Carolina Tax Study Group Member, 2010–2016.
Chicago Bar Association, Association Member, 2009–2010.
District of Columbia Bar, Bar Member, 2020–present.
Member, Innovations in Legal Practice Committee (f/k/a the Global Legal
Practice Committee), 2020–present.
Federal Bar Association, Association Member, 2022–present.
54
J. Edgar Murdock American Inns of Court Member, 2021–2022.
National Bar Association, Association Member, 2021–present.
Member, Section on Taxation, 2021–present.
Treasurer, Section on Taxation, 2021.
Richland County, South Carolina Bar Association Member, 2010–2016.
South Carolina Bar, Bar Member, 2009–present.
Member, Conventions Committee, 2014–present.
Member, Diversity Committee, 2018–2022.
Member, Section on Taxation, 2010–2016.
Co-Chair, Young Lawyers Division Annual Bar Convention Committee,
2015–2017; Member, 2014.
Chair, Volunteer Income Tax Assistance Program, 2011–2016.
United States Tax Court.
Member, Human Resources Committee, 2021–present.
Member, STJ Retirement Implementation Committee, 2023–present.
Member, Information Technology Committee, 2021–present.
Member, Judicial Security Working Group, 2023–present.
Charitable:
United Way of the Midlands.
Member, Chair-Elect, Chair, Former Chair, Young Leaders Society, 2011–
2016.
Other:
Capital City Club, Columbia, South Carolina Member, 2011–2016 (approxi-
mate).
The Y of Central Maryland Member, 2023–present.
University of South Carolina Alumni Association (I do not recall the dates of
membership).
University of South Carolina/Gamecock Club Member, 2001–present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate dating back to the
age of 18.
I have never been a candidate for public office.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees, currently and during the last 10 years prior
to the date of your nomination.
Volunteer Letter Writer, Swing Left, Fall 2020.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization,
political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for
the past 10 years prior to the date of your nomination.
Act Blue/Biden for President and Biden Fight Fund, $128.
Act Blue/Jaime Harrison for U.S. Senate (South Carolina), $125.
Act Blue/Democratic National Committee, $62.34.
Vincent Sheheen for Governor (South Carolina), $400.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, hon-
orary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievement received since the age of 18):
Phi Delta Phi Honor Society Membership Inducted, 2007.
University of South Carolina Dean’s List, 2000–2001.
University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law.
Carolina Legal Merit Scholarship, 2006–2009.
Dean’s List, 2008–2009.
Special Projects Editor, Journal of International Law and Business, 2008–
2009.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and hyperlinks (as applica-
ble) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, or other published materials you
have written):
Contributing Author, McNair Law Insights, ‘‘South Carolina Economic Develop-
ment Incentives: Sales and Use Tax Exclusions and Exemptions,’’ May 19, 2016,
55
https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/south-carolina-economic-development-
incentives-sales-and-use-tax-exclusions-and-exemptions.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘Wait a Minute: Congress Passes Law
Requiring Consistent Basis Reporting between Estates and Beneficiaries for Es-
tate Tax Purposes,’’ March 30, 2016, https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/
wait-a-minute-congress-passes-law-requiring-consistent-basis-reporting-between-
estates-and-beneficiaries-for-estate-tax-purposes.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘South Carolina Economic Development
Incentives: Job Development Credit,’’ March 23, 2016, https://www.burr.com/
tax-law-insights/south-carolina-economic-development-incentives-job-develop-
ment-credit.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘South Carolina’s Motion Picture
Project and Production Facility Credit,’’ November 6, 2015, https://www.burr.
com/tax-law-insights/south-carolinas-motion-picture-project-and-production-fa-
cility-credit-2.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘The Revocable Trust: Is This a Nec-
essary Component of Your Estate Plan? (Part 2),’’ October 16, 2015, https://
www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/the-revocable-trust-is-this-a-necessary-compo-
nent-of-your-estate-plan.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘Forget to File Your FBAR? Don’t
Worry, You Can Still File Without Incurring Penalties!’’, previously located at
www.sctaxlawyers.net, June 22, 2015.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘South Carolina Department of Rev-
enue Issues Guidance Regarding the Tax Treatment for Married Same-Sex Cou-
ples,’’ December 10, 2014, https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/south-caro-
lina-department-of-revenue-issues-guidance-regarding-the-tax-treatment-for-mar-
ried-same-sex-couples.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘Same Sex Couples May Now File Mar-
ried Income Tax Returns in South Carolina,’’ November 24, 2014, https://
www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/same-sex-couples-may-now-file-married-income-
tax-returns-in-south-carolina.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘Same-Sex Marriages in South Caro-
lina: Tax Implications of Condon v. Haley,’’ November 14, 2014, https://
www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/same-sex-marriages-in-south-carolina-tax-impli-
cations-of-condon-v-haley.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘IRS Announces New Procedures for
U.S. Citizens Residing Overseas Who Have Not Filed Tax Returns and Reported
Income,’’ September 12, 2012, https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/new-pro-
cedures-for-u-s-citizens-residing-overseas-who-have-not-filed-tax-returns-and-re-
ported-income.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘The Importance of a Qualified Ap-
praisal for Conservation Easements,’’ August 1, 2012, https://www.burr.com/
tax-law-insights/importance-of-qualified-appraisal-for-conservation-easements.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘IRS Announces More Flexible Offer-
in Compromise Terms to Help More Struggling Taxpayers Make a Fresh Start,’’
June 5, 2012, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=0a69ae3b-6a08-
4cc0-bb36-f4bc95594d3b.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘IRS Revises Streamlined Installment
Agreement Program,’’ March 22, 2012, https://www.lexology.com/library/de-
tail.aspx?g=c68700e8-d7e3-4fe9-8762-4352fc9289eb.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘Reinstatement for Tax-Exempt Orga-
nizations Whose Exemption Status was Automatically Revoked by the IRS,’’
March 7, 2012, https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/reinstatement-auto-
matic-revocation-tax-exempt-status-org.
Contributing Author, Tax Law Insights, ‘‘United States Tax Court Agrees with
Taxpayer and Finds Reasonable Cause to Abate Employment Tax Penalties,’’
July 29, 2011, https://www.burr.com/tax-law-insights/us-tax-court-agrees-with-
taxpayer.
56
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) you have
delivered during the past 5 years which are on topics relevant to the position
for which you have been nominated, including dates):
Co-Presenter, Important Tax Court Procedural Cases, September 26, 2023, U.S.
Tax Court, Washington, District of Columbia. Copy of prepared materials pro-
vided.
Presenter, Conversation with Nonprofit Organizations Clinic Students and Pro-
fessor Jaclyn Cherry, University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of
Law, March 28, 2023, via Zoom. I have no notes, transcript, or recording.
Co-Presenter, Important Tax Court Procedural Cases, November 10, 2022, U.S.
Tax Court, Washington, District of Columbia. Copy of prepared materials pro-
vided.
Presenter, A View from The Bench: An Update on Recent Developments in the
U.S. Tax Court, University of Baltimore School of Law, November 4, 2022, via
Zoom. Copy of prepared materials provided.
Co-Presenter, Federal Career Opportunities in Tax Law, August 30, 2022, via
Zoom. I have no notes, transcript, or recording.
Presenter, 2022 AI Todd Estate Planning and Taxation Workshop—Special Edi-
tion, June 19, 2022, Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Copy of prepared materials
provided.
Presenter, A View from The Bench: An Update on Recent Developments in the
U.S. Tax Court, May 26, 2022, National Bar Association Tax Section, via Zoom.
Copy of prepared materials provided.
Co-Presenter, Federal Careers in Tax Law Panel, August 30, 2022, Internal
Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel, via Zoom. I have no notes, transcript,
or recording.
Co-Presenter, Tax Court Updates: The View from the Bench, American Bar As-
sociation—Tax Section May Meeting, May 14, 2022, Marriott Marquis Hotel,
Washington, District of Columbia. I have no notes, transcript, or recording.
Co-Presenter, Diversity in Tax Law, Maryland State Bar Association, April 15,
2022, via Zoom. I have no notes, transcript, or recording.
Presenter, Income Taxation and the Cannabis Industry for IRS Chief Counsel
Attorneys, June 2020, Baltimore, Maryland. Upon resigning from the IRS Office
of Chief Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these internal
presentation materials.
Co-Presenter, Interview Techniques and Strategies for IRS Examination Per-
sonnel, May 2020, Baltimore, Maryland. Upon resigning from the IRS Office of
Chief Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these internal pres-
entation materials.
Co-Presenter, Civil Fraud Examination Strategies and Indirect Methods of
Proving Gross Income, IRS East Territory and Legacy Territory Personnel, Sep-
tember 2019, Baltimore, Maryland. Upon resigning from the IRS Office of Chief
Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these internal presen-
tation materials.
Presenter, Interview Techniques and Strategies for IRS Examination Personnel,
August 2018, San Jose, California. Upon resigning from the IRS Office of Chief
Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these internal presen-
tation materials.
Presenter, Bridging the Gap Between Chief Counsel and IRS Examination Per-
sonnel, April 2018, San Jose, California. Upon resigning from the IRS Office of
Chief Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these internal pres-
entation materials.
Co-Presenter, Audit Techniques Training for Marijuana Dispensaries for IRS
Northern California and Southwestern Territory Examination Personnel, March
2017 and June 2017, San Francisco, California. Upon resigning from the IRS
Office of Chief Counsel in December 2021, I no longer have access to these in-
ternal presentation materials.
Co-Presenter, The Repeal of TEFRA: What Tax Practitioners Need to Know,
McNair Law Firm, P.A. Tax Practice Group Summer Series, May 2016, Colum-
57
bia, South Carolina. Upon resigning from McNair Law Firm, P.A. in August
2016, I no longer have access to these presentation materials.
Co-Presenter, South Carolina Sales and Use Taxes: Operation and Administra-
tion of the Taxes and Potential Discharge in Bankruptcy, South Carolina Bank-
ruptcy Law Association Annual Meeting, May 2015, Savannah, Georgia. Upon
resigning from McNair Law Firm, P.A. in August 2016, I no longer have access
to these presentation materials.
Presenter, Tax Implications of U.S. v. Windsor—Repeal of the Defense of Mar-
riage Act, South Carolina Bar Convention—Tax Section, January 2014, Kiawah
Island, South Carolina. Upon resigning from McNair Law Firm, P.A. in August
2016, I no longer have access to these presentation materials.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to serve in the position
to which you have been nominated):
I have tax litigation experience from all three perspectives: representing tax-
payers, representing the Internal Revenue Service, and adjudicating cases as a
special trial judge on the United States Tax Court. As a special trial judge, I
have conducted motion hearings and trials and have resolved these disputes
through written orders and published opinions. These opportunities have al-
lowed me to demonstrate my patience, judicial temperament, and case manage-
ment skills. Furthermore, my service on court committees has allowed me to
understand the Court’s jurisprudence and internal processes. The combination
of these experiences has equipped me with the requisite skills to further the
Court’s mission to provide expeditious resolution of tax disputes.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future benefit arrange-
ments) with your present employers, business firms, associations, or organiza-
tions if you are confirmed by the Senate? If not, provide details.
If confirmed by the Senate, I will continue to work at the United States Tax
Court but in a new role. Also, I have served as an adjunct professor at the Uni-
versity of Baltimore School of Law. If confirmed and if offered by the law school,
I plan to periodically teach a course, with the approval of the Chief Judge of
the United States Tax Court. Otherwise, I do not have any plans, commitments,
or agreements to pursue other outside employment.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government?
If so, provide details.
See response to question B.1. above.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ your
services in any capacity after you leave government service? If so, provide de-
tails.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out your full term
or until the next presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
personal relationships, including spousal or family employment, which could in-
volve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been nomi-
nated.
My spouse is employed by UnitedHealth Group Incorporated (UHG) and has
been awarded equity in UHG. My spouse and I also own stock in other publicly
traded companies. If confirmed, I will recuse myself from all discussions related
to UHG, any subsidiary corporations owned by UHG, and any entities in which
my spouse and I are stockholders.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you
have had during the last 10 years (prior to the date of your nomination), wheth-
er for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any
58
way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to which
you have been nominated.
Presently, I recuse myself and will continue to recuse myself with respect to any
cases I worked on while employed by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date of your nomina-
tion) in which you have engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influ-
encing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the ad-
ministration and execution of law or public policy. Activities performed as an
employee of the Federal Government need not be listed.
None.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Provide the committee
with two copies of any trust or other agreements.)
If confirmed, I would take whatever steps were necessary and appropriate after
carefully and diligently applying 28 U.S.C. section 455, Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, and other relevant canons, provisions, and
guidance, including recusal.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been investigated, disciplined,
or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional conduct before any
court, administrative agency (e.g., an Inspector General’s office), professional as-
sociation, disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any
time? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless of the out-
come.
Yes.
On April 26, 2023, a taxpayer in a docketed case before the United States Tax
Court filed a Complaint Relating to Judicial Conduct or Disability of Judges and
Special Trial Judges (the ‘‘Complaint’’) contending that I engaged in judicial
misconduct. In the Complaint, the taxpayer alleged that I: (1) improperly per-
mitted an attorney for the IRS Office of Chief Counsel to represent the IRS Ap-
peals Office prior to (and subsequently at) trial, (2) failed to determine that the
issued notice of deficiency was invalid, (3) improperly directed the taxpayer’s at-
tention to a non-precedential bench opinion issued by the Court regarding simi-
lar arguments raised by this taxpayer in a prior docketed case for reference, (4)
demonstrated improper bias and partiality in the docketed case, and (5) erred
in failing to recuse myself from the case.
The United States Tax Court Judicial Conduct and Disability Council inves-
tigated the Complaint, and on June 12, 2023, the Court dismissed the Com-
plaint. The Council determined that my judicial decisions in the docketed case
were merit-related.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of any Federal, State,
county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic
offense? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part
of any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
No.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of
any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavor-
able, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.
None.
59
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may
be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide such information
as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO ADAM B. LANDY
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Question. If confirmed as a judge to the United States Tax Court, you will be re-
sponsible for interpreting how our tax laws apply to a wide variety of plaintiffs—
everything from multinational corporations with large legal teams to small busi-
nesses and individuals who appear before the Court without counsel.
What role would you give to legislative intent, conference report language, or
statements from members of Congress as you interpret and apply regulations affect-
ing tax law?
Answer. The U.S. Supreme Court has established judicial precedent regarding the
interpretation and application of statutes and regulations affecting tax law. I adhere
to that precedent in my current role as a special trial judge of the U.S. Tax Court,
and if confirmed as a judge, I will continue to do so.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MIKE CRAPO
Question. In Fiscal Year 2023, there were around 22,000 cases filed and 31,500
closed at the Tax Court. That was the second-least amount of cases filed in the last
7 years and the second-most cases closed in the same time span.
If confirmed, how will you prioritize providing fair and impartial decisions while
also managing your caseload efficiently?
Answer. From my experiences as a special trial judge, I have developed processes
to handle my caseload efficiently. If confirmed, I will promptly review cases assigned
to me by the Chief Judge to determine whether any legal disputes exist which would
prevent the cases from being calendared for trial. Thereafter, I will encourage com-
munication and cooperation between taxpayers and the IRS to facilitate settlement
or a streamlined trial if settlement cannot be reached. Next, I will use the case
management features in DAWSON, the Court’s document management system, to
ensure all deadlines are properly calendared and to monitor the litigants’ compli-
ance with all deadlines. Finally, I will allow the parties to be heard through pretrial
evidentiary hearings or through testimony elicited at trial which will allow me to
issue fair and impartial opinions.
Question. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel is responsible for representing the gov-
ernment in matters before the Tax Court, and is thereby involved in every dispute
before the Court. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that this close relation-
ship may lead to unjust outcomes.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure you remain fair and impartial to all par-
ties, and ensure you will not provide special preferences?
Answer. As a special trial judge, I take my ethical responsibilities and obligations
seriously and will continue to do so, if confirmed. I will treat all parties who come
before the Court in the same manner and apply the law evenhandedly to the facts
presented.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES
Question. As of April 2024, the U.S. Tax Court had a backlog of 750 conservation
easement cases. Last Congress, my bill, the Charitable Conservation Easement Pro-
gram Integrity Act, was signed into law to provide clarity on a number of these
60
cases. Since then, a number of cases have been decided with differing outcomes, set-
ting various precedents, and a large backlog remains.
If confirmed to the U.S. Tax Court, how will you approach these cases and help
clear the backlog?
Answer. Presently, the Court schedules conservation easement cases for trial
when taxpayers and the IRS can commit to a definite trial date. If confirmed, I will
request assignment of easement cases which are ripe for trial and subsequent opin-
ion. Upon assignment of these cases, I will work with taxpayers and the IRS to get
the cases ready for trial. Specifically, I will solicit cooperation between the litigants
to identify as many efficiencies as possible in the pretrial process, for instance, per-
mitting the parties to stipulate as many undisputed facts as possible through the
discovery process and other pretrial means. Hopefully, this approach will facilitate
seamless trial presentation and expeditious resolution of the cases by published
opinion or resolution by the parties.
----
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG
Question. The Tax Court plays a critical role in interpreting tax law and resolving
disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. As a nominee for this Article I judgeship,
you will be responsible for hearing a wide range of cases.
Can you elaborate on your approach to applying the law impartially and ensuring
consistent application of tax code to all taxpayers, regardless of their background?
Answer. As a special trial judge, I strive to understand the litigants’ positions,
clearly communicate my expectations for the case as it progresses from the pretrial
phase to trial, and carefully review the evidence and arguments presented by the
litigants at trial. This approach has allowed me to apply the law evenhandedly to
the facts presented. If confirmed as a judge of the U.S. Tax Court, I will continue
to take this approach, which I believe helps me apply the law impartially while en-
suring consistent application of the Internal Revenue Code.
Question. Given the tremendous backlog of cases currently facing the U.S. Tax
Court, what specific strategies would you implement to expedite case resolution?
Answer. As a special trial judge, I work to expeditiously resolve tax disputes
through written orders and published opinions. I will employ the same approach to
expedite case resolution, if confirmed. I will emphasize communication and coopera-
tion between the litigants to resolve any legal problems hindering the case from pro-
ceeding to trial and case resolution. If confirmed, I will expedite resolution of tax
disputes by continuing to implement the strategies I developed while serving as a
special trial judge.
Question. Would you consider increasing the number of hours that the U.S. Tax
Court is open to hear cases?
Answer. The Chief Judge of the U.S. Tax Court assigns trial sessions to judges.
For certain cities and when necessary, the Court increases the number of trial ses-
sions, as well as the total number of cases assigned to those cities. If confirmed, I
commit to being assigned as many trial sessions as possible to resolve the Court’s
collective case inventory.
Question. How do you envision these strategies mitigating the harmful effects that
prolonged case backlogs have on taxpayers awaiting decisions?
Answer. These strategies will facilitate the expeditious resolution of the parties’
tax disputes. If confirmed, I will continue to incorporate these strategies developed
as a special trial judge to reduce the time taxpayers wait for a resolution of their
tax disputes.
Question. The lack access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) service has been a significant concern for many taxpayers. It often takes
an expensive courier service or an in-person visit for a taxpayer to access records
on their case.
What measures would you propose to enhance the accessibility and transparency
of court records through PACER?
Answer. The U.S. Tax Court does not use PACER for management of court
records. The U.S. Tax Court utilizes a case document management system, known
as DAWSON, to allow taxpayers to file petitions electronically and for the parties
61
to file and access pleadings and other documents electronically for no fee. The U.S.
Tax Court balances the need for access to court records with the duty to prevent
the inadvertent disclosure of taxpayers’ financial and personally identifiable infor-
mation, which are commonly included in Tax Court filings. The public may, free of
charge, utilize DAWSON to search, view, and print court orders and published opin-
ions. In August 2023, the Court further expanded free public access to stipulated
decisions, posttrial briefs, and amicus briefs.
Question. How do you believe improved access to these records would impact tax-
payer service and trust in the judicial process?
Answer. Improved access to court records via DAWSON instills public confidence
in the U.S. Tax Court’s mission to provide uniform interpretation of internal rev-
enue laws in a fair and transparent manner.
SUBMITTED BY HON. ELIZABETH WARREN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM MASSACHUSETTS
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC 20515
May 10, 2024
Richard K. Delmar
Acting Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 4436
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Mr. Delmar:
We write regarding your recently released ‘‘Inquiry on Revolving Door Between the
Largest Accounting Firms and the Department of the Treasury.’’1
We requested that you conduct this investigation in February 2022, after The New
York Times reported that ‘‘[t]he largest U.S. accounting firms have perfected a re-
markably effective behind-the-scenes system to promote their interests in Wash-
ington,’’2 and our investigation revealed that ‘‘since 2001, at least 24 . . . employees
[of big accounting firms] left to take senior tax-policy positions in the Federal Gov-
ernment, including at Treasury and [the Internal Revenue Service], and returned
to their firms after government work, often receiving massive promotions and
raises.’’3
It took you over 2 years to conduct your review—and the result was an irresponsible
whitewash that failed to seriously investigate the problem or hold any individual
or company accountable. This represents a failure on your part—you failed to con-
duct a serious inquiry, and you should retract this report and start over in order
to conduct a meaningful review of the scope and significance of this revolving door
problem at the Treasury Department.
Your report concluded that:
1 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Inquiry on Revolving Door
Between the Largest Accounting Firms and the Department of the Treasury,’’ OIG–CA–24–015,
March 21, 2024, https://oig.treasury.gov/sites/oig/files/2024-03/OIG-CA-24-015%20%28508%
20compliant%20-%20secured%29.pdf.
2 New York Times, ‘‘How Accounting Giants Craft Favorable Tax Rules from Inside Govern-
ment,’’ Jesse Drucker and Danny Hakim, September 19, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/
09/19/business/accounting-firms-tax-loopholes-government.html.
3 Senator Elizabeth Warren, ‘‘Warren, Jayapal Call on Treasury, Tax Inspectors General to
Investigate Unethical Revolving Door Between Treasury and ‘Big Five’ Accounting Firms,’’ press
release, February 22, 2022, https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/warren-
jayapal-call-on-treasury-tax-inspectors-general-to-investigate-unethical-revolving-door-between-
treasury-and-big-five-accounting-firms.
Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Pramila Jayapal to Department of
the Treasury Inspector General Richard K. Delmar and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Ad-
ministration J. Russell George, February 18, 2022, https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/
doc/2022.02.18%20Letter%20to%20Treasury%20IGs%20on%20Revolving%20Door.pdf.
62
Treasury has policies and procedures in place to protect Treasury and its
tax policies and revenue rulings from undue influence by employees with
potential conflicts of interest. Specifically, Treasury’s tax guidance review
process includes numerous stages of review and approval of tax guidance
before publication. The process is coordinated with multiple individuals and
offices within IRS and Treasury from the tax guidance development’s ear-
liest stages.4
This conclusion—and the rationale by which you reached it—is absurd. In simple
terms, you concluded that because many Department officials are involved in devel-
oping important tax rules, there can be no meaningful conflicts of interest. This fails
a basic test of logic and common sense: in reality, the more Treasury or IRS Depart-
ment officials that are working on a key tax rule—particularly in the absence of key
rules and regulations to address revolving door conflicts of interest—the more likely
these rules are to be affected by conflicts of interest.
That is why, when your sister Inspector General (IG) office—the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration—conducted a similar review, that review deter-
mined that, ‘‘between 2017 and 2021, 496 IRS employees—or 15 percent of the agen-
cy’s workforce—received income from a large accounting firm or large corporation,’’
that ‘‘37 of those employees were IRS executives, senior officials responsible for key
agency decision-making,’’ and that in several instances, ‘‘employees . . . charged
time to a private letter ruling in which the taxpayer’s representative was the same
large accounting firm that the employee recently worked for before joining the IRS
or left the IRS to join’’—‘‘rais[ing] impartiality concerns.’’5
The decision to write off obvious opportunities for Treasury employees to exert im-
proper influence on tax policies is not the only gap on your report. You indicated
that ‘‘Treasury relies primarily on employees self-reporting’’ to identify and prevent
conflict of interest.6 But you conducted no audit of any employee’s reporting to de-
termine if this reliance was justified, and you ‘‘did not perform a review of the infor-
mation in the Ethics Tracker’’ that the Treasury Department uses to retain ethics
information on employees, and did not conduct a detailed review of any single agen-
cy policy action or rulemaking.7
This was a drive-by investigation that appeared to be designed to reach pre-
conceived results absolving Treasury officials of wrongdoing despite the obvious evi-
dence of serious revolving door conflicts of interest.
Your office can and must do better. Given our concerns about this matter, and the
ongoing ethics threats to agency policymaking, we ask that you retract this report
and its conclusions, and conduct a more thorough and meaningful review.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Warren Pramila Jayapal
United States Senator Member of Congress
PREPARED STATEMENT OF KASHI WAY, NOMINATED TO BE A
JUDGE OF THE UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Chairman Wyden, Ranking Member Crapo, and members of the Finance Com-
mittee, thank you for holding this hearing to consider my nomination to serve as
a judge on the United States Tax Court. I am honored to have been nominated by
the President, and I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be here today. Thank you
also to the committee staff for their assistance throughout this process.
4 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Inquiry on Revolving Door
Between the Largest Accounting Firms and the Department of the Treasury,’’ OIG–CA–24–015,
March 21, 2024, p. 3, https://oig.treasury.gov/sites/oig/files/2024-03/OIG-CA-24-015%20%
28508%20compliant%20-%20secured%29.pdf.
5 Letter from Senator Elizabeth Warren and Representative Pramila Jayapal to IRS Commis-
sioner Danny Werfel, September 27, 2023, pp. 1–2, https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/
doc/2023.09.27%20Letter%20to%20IRS%20on%20TIGTA%20Report.pdf; Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, ‘‘Processes Are in Place to Identify and Address Potential Con-
flicts of Interest in Large Corporate Tax Administration,’’ August 24, 2023, pp. 5 and ii, https://
www.tigta.gov/sites/default/files/reports/2023-08/202340047fr.pdf.
6 U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Inquiry on Revolving Door
Between the Largest Accounting Firms and the Department of the Treasury,’’ OIG–CA–24–015,
March 21, 2024, p. 4, https://oig.treasury.gov/sites/oig/files/2024-03/OIG-CA-24-015%20%28
508%20compliant%20-%20secured%29.pdf.
7 Id.
63
I am joined this morning by my wife Diane and my sons Ian and Evan, whose
love and support have been a continuous source of strength for me. I am also joined
by my 81-year-old mother, who flew in from California. She raised me as a single
mom on a secretary’s salary before going to night school to become a computer pro-
grammer. Without her as a role model, I certainly would not be here today. I also
want to acknowledge Tom Barthold, my boss and the Chief of Staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. Finally, I am grateful for the numerous friends who are in
attendance or watching virtually.
For more than 19 years, I have been serving the Congress on the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. During that time, I have worked under multiple chairmen
from both parties, and my goal has always been to provide the best nonpartisan ad-
vice possible. As you all know, there is a lot of behind-the-scenes work that goes
into every tax bill that comes up for a vote. The tax legislative process is one that
requires thoughtfulness, patience, and dedication. It has truly been an honor and
a privilege to help you prepare your legislation and advance your policies over these
many years.
As anyone who has filed a tax return knows, our tax system is complicated and
can frustrate even well-intentioned taxpayers. The Tax Court affords taxpayers a
crucial forum for resolving civil disputes with the IRS. It is my desire to contribute
to the fairness of the tax system by helping to resolve these disputes in a manner
that ensures taxpayers have the opportunity to be heard and pay no more than
what is required under the law.
If I am confirmed, I will take the skills I have learned on the Joint Committee
staff to serve the country in a different capacity. In particular, I will continue to
work thoughtfully, patiently, and with dedication to ensure fairness in the tax sys-
tem. If confirmed as a judge, I promise to impartially apply the law to the facts be-
fore me in the resolution of tax disputes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to appear today, and I look forward to your
questions.
----
SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE
STATEMENT OF INFORMATION REQUESTED
OF NOMINEE
A. BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION
1. Name (include any former names used): Kashi Manu Way.
2. Position to which nominated: Judge, United States Tax Court.
3. Date of nomination: February 1, 2024.
4. Address (list current residence, office, and mailing addresses):
5. Date and place of birth: East Greenville, PA.
6. Marital status (include maiden name of wife or husband’s name):
7. Names and ages of children:
8. Education (list all secondary and higher education institutions, dates attended,
degree received, and date degree granted):
University of Southern California, 1988–1993, B.A., December 1993.
University of Sussex, England, 1992–1993 (year abroad; no degree).
Columbia University, 1993–1994, M.A., February 1995.
University of Virginia, 1996–1999, J.D., June 1999.
Georgetown University, Spring 2004 (took one course on consolidated tax re-
turns; no degree).
64
9. Employment record (list all jobs held since college, including the title or descrip-
tion of job, name of employer, location of work, and dates of employment for
each job):
Research Assistant to Dr. Seweryn Bialer, Columbia University, Graduate
School of Arts and Sciences, New York City, NY, 1993–1994 (academic year).
Paralegal Specialist, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC,
1994–1996.
Research Assistant to Professor A. E. Dick Howard, University of Virginia,
School of Law, Charlottesville, VA, 1997 (summer).
Summer Associate, Dewey Ballantine, LLP, New York City, NY, 1998 (sum-
mer).
Clerk to Judge Joseph Gale, United States Tax Court, Washington, DC, 1999–
2001.
Associate, Covington and Burling, LLP, Washington, DC, 2001–2005.
Legislation Counsel and Senior Legislation Counsel, United States Congress,
Joint Committee on Taxation, Washington, DC, March 2005–present.
Professorial Lecturer, George Washington University Law School, Washington,
DC, spring semester 2023 (taught a 2-unit evening tax course).
10. Government experience (list any current and former advisory, consultative, hon-
orary, or other part-time service or positions with Federal, State, or local gov-
ernments held since college, including dates, other than those listed above):
None.
11. Business relationships (list all current and former positions held as an officer,
director, trustee, partner (e.g., limited partner, nonvoting, etc.), proprietor,
agent, representative, or consultant of any corporation, company, firm, partner-
ship, other business enterprise, or educational or other institution):
Treasurer (volunteer), East Rockville Civic Association, Rockville, MD, 2015–
present (this is a neighborhood civic association with an annual budget of ap-
proximately $1,000).
12. Memberships (list all current and former memberships, as well as any current
and former offices held in professional, fraternal, scholarly, civic, business, char-
itable, and other organizations dating back to college, including dates for these
memberships and offices):
Virginia Tax Review, Editor, then Editor-in-Chief, 1997–1999 (academic journal
at the University of Virginia School of Law).
California Bar (inactive), Member, 1999–present.
Washington, DC, Bar, Member, 2000–present.
East Rockville Civic Association, Treasurer (volunteer), 2015–present; Member,
2014–present.
13. Political affiliations and activities:
a. List all public offices for which you have been a candidate dating back to the
age of 18.
None.
b. List all memberships and offices held in and services rendered to all political
parties or election committees, currently and during the last 10 years prior
to the date of your nomination.
None.
c. Itemize all political contributions to any individual, campaign organization,
political party, political action committee, or similar entity of $50 or more for
the past 10 years prior to the date of your nomination.
July 2019—donated $200 to Friends of Suzan Pitman. Suzan Pitman was a
candidate for the city of Rockville, MD, city council.
14. Honors and awards (list all scholarships, fellowships, honorary degrees, hon-
orary society memberships, military medals, and any other special recognitions
for outstanding service or achievement received since the age of 18):
65
Phi Beta Kappa, 1992.
Virginia Governor’s Fellow, 1997.
15. Published writings (list the titles, publishers, dates, and hyperlinks (as applica-
ble) of all books, articles, reports, blog posts, or other published materials you
have written):
State and Local Sales Tax on Internet Commerce: Developing a Neutral and Ef-
ficient Framework, 19 Virginia Tax Review 115, Summer 1999.
Want a new way to commute? Ride a scooter!, Greater Greater Washington, De-
cember 3, 2015 (attached and available online at Want a new way to commute?
Ride a scooter!—Greater Greater Washington (https://ggwash.org/contribu-
tors/kway)).
16. Speeches (list all formal speeches and presentations (e.g., PowerPoint) you have
delivered during the past 5 years which are on topics relevant to the position
for which you have been nominated, including dates):
None.
17. Qualifications (state what, in your opinion, qualifies you to serve in the position
to which you have been nominated):
I have been working as a tax lawyer for more than 24 years, first as a clerk
at the Tax Court, then in private practice at a large DC law firm, and since
March 2005 on the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation. During that time,
I have worked in many areas of taxation, covering both corporate and individual
income taxes. In addition to this deep knowledge base, I have spent nearly 2
decades providing technical tax advice on a nonpartisan basis to members of the
House and Senate and their staff. With respect to the Senate Finance Com-
mittee in particular, I have assisted the majority and minority staff under mul-
tiple Chairmen in the development of their tax proposals. I have also provided
similar assistance to the legislative aides of individual Senators serving on the
committee.
My role has always been to provide the best nonpartisan advice possible, with
the goal of improving whatever idea or proposal with which I have been pre-
sented. This service has helped me to develop the kind of balanced tempera-
ment important for a judge. Finally, to give back to the tax community, I taught
an evening tax seminar in the spring of 2023 at the George Washington Univer-
sity Law School. With this background, I believe I have the knowledge, skill,
and temperament to be a successful Tax Court judge.
B. FUTURE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONSHIPS
1. Will you sever all connections (including participation in future benefit arrange-
ments) with your present employers, business firms, associations, or organiza-
tions if you are confirmed by the Senate? If not, provide details.
Yes.
2. Do you have any plans, commitments, or agreements to pursue outside employ-
ment, with or without compensation, during your service with the government?
If so, provide details.
No.
3. Has any person or entity made a commitment or agreement to employ your
services in any capacity after you leave government service? If so, provide de-
tails.
No.
4. If you are confirmed by the Senate, do you expect to serve out your full term
or until the next presidential election, whichever is applicable? If not, explain.
Yes.
66
C. POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
1. Indicate any current and former investments, obligations, liabilities, or other
personal relationships, including spousal or family employment, which could in-
volve potential conflicts of interest in the position to which you have been nomi-
nated.
None.
2. Describe any business relationship, dealing, or financial transaction which you
have had during the last 10 years (prior to the date of your nomination), wheth-
er for yourself, on behalf of a client, or acting as an agent, that could in any
way constitute or result in a possible conflict of interest in the position to which
you have been nominated.
None.
3. Describe any activity during the past 10 years (prior to the date of your nomina-
tion) in which you have engaged for the purpose of directly or indirectly influ-
encing the passage, defeat, or modification of any legislation or affecting the ad-
ministration and execution of law or public policy. Activities performed as an
employee of the Federal Government need not be listed.
In the fall of 2014, I opposed the construction of a self-storage facility in my
Rockville, MD, neighborhood. To that end, I spoke in opposition at several city
of Rockville Mayor and council and planning commission meetings.
4. Explain how you will resolve any potential conflict of interest, including any
that are disclosed by your responses to the above items. (Provide the committee
with two copies of any trust or other agreements.)
If confirmed, I would take whatever steps were necessary and appropriate after
carefully and diligently applying 28 U.S.C. section 455, Canon 3 of the Code of
Conduct for United States Judges, and other relevant canons, provisions and
guidance, including recusal.
D. LEGAL AND OTHER MATTERS
1. Have you ever been the subject of a complaint or been investigated, disciplined,
or otherwise cited for a breach of ethics for unprofessional conduct before any
court, administrative agency (e.g., an Inspector General’s office), professional as-
sociation, disciplinary committee, or other ethics enforcement entity at any
time? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part of
any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details, regardless of the out-
come.
No.
2. Have you ever been investigated, arrested, charged, or held by any Federal,
State, or other law enforcement authority for a violation of any Federal, State,
county, or municipal law, regulation, or ordinance, other than a minor traffic
offense? Have you ever been interviewed regarding your own conduct as part
of any such inquiry or investigation? If so, provide details.
No.
3. Have you ever been involved as a party in interest in any administrative agency
proceeding or civil litigation? If so, provide details.
In 2011–2012, my wife and I were two of more than 25 named defendants in
a civil suit in Florida relating to my wife’s deceased uncle’s estate. The purpose
of the lawsuit was to recover money from the estate and the estate’s bene-
ficiaries. Since neither my wife nor I were beneficiaries of the estate, the judge
granted our motion to be dismissed from the case. Other than that, we have
not been parties in any litigation or regulatory matters.
4. Have you ever been convicted (including pleas of guilty or nolo contendere) of
any criminal violation other than a minor traffic offense? If so, provide details.
No.
5. Please advise the committee of any additional information, favorable or unfavor-
able, which you feel should be considered in connection with your nomination.
None.
67
E. TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS
1. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to appear and testify before
any duly constituted committee of the Congress on such occasions as you may
be reasonably requested to do so?
Yes.
2. If you are confirmed by the Senate, are you willing to provide such information
as is requested by such committees?
Yes.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO KASHI WAY
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO
Question. If confirmed as a judge to the United States Tax Court, you will be re-
sponsible for interpreting how our tax laws apply to a wide variety of plaintiffs—
everything from multinational corporations with large legal teams to small busi-
nesses and individuals who appear before court without counsel.
What role would you give to legislative intent, conference report language, or
statements from members of Congress as you interpret and apply regulations affect-
ing tax law?
Answer. If confirmed, I would apply any binding precedent and rely on well-
established tools of statutory interpretation—starting with the plain text of the
law—in determining the meaning of a statute. Legislative history, including con-
ference report language and statements from members of Congress, may be consid-
ered and can be useful where the meaning of the statutory text and any judicial
precedent and binding administrative guidance is ambiguous, but cannot override
a plain reading of a clear statute.
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. MIKE CRAPO
Question. In Fiscal Year 2023, there were around 22,000 cases filed and 31,500
closed at the Tax Court. That was the second-least amount of cases filed in the last
seven years and the second-most cases closed in the same time span.
If confirmed, how will you prioritize providing fair and impartial decisions while
also managing your caseload efficiently?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work hard to provide fair and impartial decisions in
a timely manner. Every case is different, and each petitioner deserves to have their
case thoughtfully considered. If confirmed, I will strive to do that without any un-
necessary delays.
Question. The IRS Office of Chief Counsel is responsible for representing the gov-
ernment in matters before the Tax Court, and is thereby involved in every dispute
before the Court. Some stakeholders have expressed concern that this close relation-
ship may lead to unjust outcomes.
If confirmed, what will you do to ensure you remain fair and impartial to all par-
ties, and ensure you will not provide special preferences?
Answer. If confirmed, I will treat both petitioners and the IRS respondent in an
equal and professional manner and not favor any particular litigant or their rep-
resentative, regardless of whether they appear routinely before the Tax Court. To
this end, I will strive to maintain a neutral decorum to avoid even the appearance
of bias.
QUESTION SUBMITTED BY HON. STEVE DAINES
Question. As of April 2024, the U.S. Tax Court had a backlog of 750 conservation
easement cases. Last Congress, my bill, the Charitable Conservation Easement Pro-
gram Integrity Act, was signed into law to provide clarity on a number of these
cases. Since then, a number of cases have been decided with differing outcomes, set-
ting various precedents, and a large backlog remains.
68
If confirmed to the U.S. Tax Court, how will you approach these cases and help
clear the backlog?
Answer. I believe taxpayers deserve certainty and efficiency in our system of tax-
ation. If confirmed, I will impartially apply the various precedents to the facts of
any conservation easement cases that come before me. As more cases are decided,
the law should become more settled, allowing for cases to be resolved more quickly.
I would also encourage the parties to work cooperatively so that issues may be re-
solved without the need for a trial.
----
QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. TODD YOUNG
Question. The Tax Court plays a critical role in interpreting tax law and resolving
disputes between the IRS and taxpayers. As a nominee for this Article I judgeship,
you will be responsible for hearing a wide range of cases.
Can you elaborate on your approach to applying the law impartially and ensuring
consistent application of tax code to all taxpayers, regardless of their background?
Answer. If confirmed, I will impartially apply any applicable provisions of the In-
ternal Revenue Code, taking into account the plain text of those provisions and any
binding precedent. I will consistently apply this interpretive process to all cases that
come before me, regardless of the background or sophistication of the petitioner. In
addition, to ensure a consistent application of the facts to the law, I will strive to
allow all petitioners, regardless of background and to the extent permitted under
the law, to make their best case and present all relevant facts.
Question. In your time at the Joint Committee on Taxation you have worked on
a number of legislative items, including the IRA-related energy provisions.
Should the court hear cases on these and other legislative items, how would you
differentiate your role as instrumental in constructing the law with your role to im-
partially hear the case of taxpayers?
Answer. I recognize that the judicial process is fundamentally different from the
legislative process. If confirmed, I will apply the law as written to any case before
me. To that end, I would apply any applicable provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code, taking into account the plain text of those provisions and any binding prece-
dent. I would not consider any role I or my Joint Committee on Taxation staff col-
leagues may have had in the legislative process.
Question. Given the tremendous backlog of cases currently facing the U.S. Tax
Court, what specific strategies would you implement to expedite case resolution?
Answer. If confirmed, I would strive to resolve cases promptly, while at the same
time ensuring that every petitioner has an opportunity to be heard and have their
case thoughtfully considered. To the extent possible and where amenable to the par-
ties, I will seek to leverage the Tax Court’s relatively recent ability to have remote
trial sessions, where that might prove convenient for taxpayers.
Question. Would you consider increasing the number of hours that the U.S. Tax
Court is open to hear cases?
Answer. If confirmed, I would certainly consider ways to make the Tax Court
more productive such that cases are resolved efficiently, taking into account any rel-
evant laws and regulations. including consulting with the Chief Judge.
Question. How do you envision these strategies mitigating the harmful effects that
prolonged case backlogs have on taxpayers awaiting decisions?
Answer. If implemented, I would envision these strategies as helping to reduce
the backlog of cases while ensuring that every case is thoughtfully considered.
Question. The lack of access to the Public Access to Court Electronic Records
(PACER) service has been a significant concern for many taxpayers. It often takes
an expensive courier service or an in-person visit for a taxpayer to access records
on their case.
What measures would you propose to enhance the accessibility and transparency
of court records through PACER?
Answer. I understand that the Tax Court’s DAWSON case management system
operates in a manner similar to PACER and makes many documents publicly avail-
able, while at the same time protecting certain personally identifiable information.
69
If confirmed, I will encourage the Tax Court to increase the effectiveness of DAW-
SON while maintaining these privacy protections.
Question. How do you believe improved access to these records would impact tax-
payer service and trust in the judicial process?
Answer. Easy access to court records that maintain protections for personally
identifiable information can reduce the costs and frustration associated with an in-
person visit or courier service. Any reduction in administrative burdens would im-
prove taxpayer confidence and satisfaction with the process and increase trans-
parency and public accountability more broadly.
----
PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON
The Finance Committee meets this morning to discuss four nominations. James
Ives is nominated to serve as Inspector General of the Department of the Treasury.
And Rose Jenkins, Adam Landy, and Kashi Way are all nominated to serve as
judges of the United States Tax Court.
I’ll begin with the Treasury IG. Inspectors General perform an essential oversight
role across the government. At the Treasury, they oversee a department with a
budget of billions of dollars and immense influence over the U.S. and global econ-
omy. They do important work rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.
There has not been a confirmed Treasury Inspector General for nearly 5 years.
It’s critical that the next IG is undaunted by political pressure and unafraid to con-
front big issues, even when it’s unpopular. I’m a firm believer that tough oversight
results in good government.
James Ives brings oversight experience from all over the Federal Government to
his nomination. He currently serves as the Principal Deputy Director of the Defense
Criminal Investigative Service, which is the criminal investigative arm of the De-
partment of Defense’s Office of Inspector General. He’s also served within the IG
offices at NASA and the Government Publishing Office.
He was also a special agent with the State Department’s Diplomatic Security
Service and a reserve special agent with the U.S. Coast Guard Investigative Service.
All in all, he has more than 3 decades of experience in oversight and law enforce-
ment, which will be highly valuable in the top job as Treasury IG.
Next up, the three nominees for the tax court. The U.S. Tax Court is the judicial
backbone of the Federal tax code. It’s the best opportunity Americans have to dis-
pute tax bills before they have to pay. And it keeps them from getting stuck in slow-
moving courts when they have a tax issue that needs resolution.
So this committee is thankful to have three nominees willing to take on this im-
portant job—all of whom bring a blend of public and private experience to their
nominations.
Rose Jenkins brings 15 years of experience in tax law to her nomination, with
particular expertise in international tax law and administrative issues. She is cur-
rently an attorney in the Office of Associate Chief Counsel for Procedure and Ad-
ministration. It’s her second go-round with the IRS Chief Counsel, as she previously
served in the international office as well. She has valuable experience in the private
sector and at NYU’s Tax Law Center.
Adam Landy has been a special trial judge on the Tax Court since 2021. He too
has several years of experience at the Office of the IRS Chief Counsel, serving in
Baltimore and San Francisco, as well as in the private sector.
And finally, Kashi Way is a Senior Legislative Counsel with the staff of the Joint
Committee on Taxation. At the Joint Committee, Mr. Way’s primary focus is on en-
ergy tax issues and R&D, but his background covers a lot more.
In 18 years at JCT, he’s had a big impact on such landmark bills as the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Amer-
ican Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, and the Infla-
tion Reduction Act of 2022.
I speak for this entire committee when I say that we are big fans of the staff over
at JCT. We would not be able to do our jobs without their expertise and profes-
sionalism, and they rarely get the recognition they deserve. Mr. Way will make an
70
excellent Tax Court judge, but this committee will be sorry to lose his counsel here
on Capitol Hill.
I want to congratulate all four nominees and thank them for joining the com-
mittee this morning. I look forward to our discussion.
Æ
File and source
- File
- CHRG-118shrg64301.pdf
- Size
- 302,520 bytes
- SHA-256
- 0940687b7beb8e965f01596606468991a2825a0e2c08e28d2000ed12bef40d95
- Our copy
- CHRG-118shrg64301.pdf
- Original
- www.govinfo.gov