Supreme Court Agrees with Prof. Hickman's Amicus Brief

In an opinion handed down today, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with the conclusion and many of the arguments in an amicus brief authored by Prof. Kristin Hickman. In Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the substantive validity of Treasury Regulation 31.3121(b)(10)-2, which requires medical residency programs to withhold FICA taxes from annual stipends paid to medical residents. Professor Hickman's brief addressed the standard of review used by the Court to evaluate the regulation. Specifically, Professor Hickman's brief urged the Court to resolve a longstanding circuit split over the standard of review for Treasury regulations issued under the general authority of Internal Revenue Code 7805(a) and argued specifically in favor of employing the broadly-applicable standard for agency legal interpretations articulated in Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), instead of an alternative, tax-specific standard of review expressed in National Muffler Dealers Assn, Inc. v. United States, 440 U.S. 472 (1979). Employing many of Professor Hickman's arguments, a unanimous Court held that Chevron rather than National Muffler provides the appropriate evaluative standard for general authority Treasury regulations.