On April 20, President Obama put forth Mary L. Smith as his nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. A hearing to consider the nomination was held last month, on May 12. The report on the hearing was sent to the Senate for consideration earlier this week. And that’s where things got ugly.
As an attorney, Smith has a pretty impressive resume. She graduated from the University of Chicago School of Law, cum laude, where she was a member of the Law Review. She had previously received a B.S., magna cum laude, in mathematics and computer science from Loyola University of Chicago.
Smith served in the Clinton White House as Associate Counsel to the President and Associate Director of Policy Planning before heading to Skadden Arps. She eventually moved on to Schoeman, Updike & Kaufman, where she is now a partner.
She’s a member of the Board of Managers for the Chicago Bar Association, a member of the Council of the American Bar Association’s Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities and Co-Chair of the District of Columbia Bar’s Section of Litigation Steering Committee.
And just look at this list of “Areas of Concentration” from her web site bio: Securities Enforcement and Compliance, Corporate Governance, SEC Defense and Investigations, Complex Litigation, Government Enforcement Litigation, Class Action Litigation, Securities Litigation, Appellate Practice, and Government Contracts Litigation.
You can read more about Smith by checking out her questionnaire relating to her nominations (it downloads as a pdf).
Some cool stuff in her background. But there’s something oddly missing from these lists… Oh, say, tax?
That’s right: she has no tax experience. She has never written a paper on tax, spoken on tax or even taken a CLE on tax.
She also has no experience as a prosecutor.
And yet, she’s been asked to serve as one of the highest ranking attorneys in the Tax Division of the judiciary.
I agree with Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) who spoke out against Smith’s nomination, saying, “Tax law is very specialized and it’s certainly not an area where you learn on the job.” Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) noted that there must have been “thousands of highly experienced tax lawyers who would love to have a job like this.”
Um, yeah.
So why Smith? Clearly, it’s a political move. No Democrats offered clear support for Smith but still voted to send her nomination to the Senate. The committee vote was 12-7 in favor.
Surprisingly, there were a number of letters of support for Smith. You can read many of the letters here.
Of course, nobody asked me to serve…
I don’t see why you’re so down on this particular pick. Sure it’s a political appointment but aren’t these jobs always political, by their very nature? And maybe she doesn’t have any direct tax experience, but you point out her resume is impressive otherwise. According to her firm’s website “Ms. Smith specializes in complex litigation, regulatory practice, and government investigations.. she served in the Clinton White House as Associate Counsel to the President and Associate Director of Policy Planning.” She doesn’t appear to be a slouch, so it’s not purely political. As I understand it the head of the tax division has to work closely with the SEC, so doesn’t it seem like her extensive skillset and related experience will help her overcome what may be less direct experience as a practicing tax attorney?
The DOJ Tax Division is responsible for prosecuting civil and criminal cases. The IRS Commish has reported that there is $300 in uncollected revenue. Some of it is attributable to fraudulent tax shelters, unscrupulous tax pros (more than 100 convicted last year) and other misdeeds. It’s so imperative that the team that works on those cases understand the IRC, not just be a good lawyer. There are a lot of talented prosecutors and tax attorneys who would have been better suited.
Hi TaxGirl,
Do you really want to be the head of the DOJ Tax Division?
Stanczyk,
Previous DOJ tax division heads have had substantive tax backgrounds as in addition to substantial litigation experience.
Just check out the resumes the last two tax division leaders, Eileen O’Connor and Nathan Hochman.
As <a href="http://blog.pappastax.com/index.php/2009/06/19/white-house-says-doj-tax-division-nominee-is-qualified-i-say-bologna/"I wrote on my own blog", if President Obama is serious about closing the tax gap, why wouldn’t he have have appointed someone to head up the tax enforcement arm of the DOJ who had both a strong background in tax law and tax litigation?
They are out there, you know?
Peter,
Actually, no. I have no prosecutorial experience and I hate, hate, hate trial work. Did I mention that I hate trial work? 😉
I think we’d do much better if the President just chose his appointments randomly, throw a dart at a map of the U.S., choose a state, throw another dart, choose a city, get the phone book, and open it up at random, and take the name at the top of the page. Not only would this save time, but we would wind up with more qualified people.
I teach nationwide continuing professional education in tax. Anyone who has never taken tax cpe is, frankly, a bad, bad person.
Enough said.
Thanks for your frankness.
Cheers,
Abe
The Tax Division would have been lucky to get Mary Smith. I worked with Mary in the Civil Division (where I worked for 7 years) and later worked in the Tax Division. Mary is an outstanding lawyer and dedicated public servant. Period. Full Stop. The lawyers in the Civil Division are outstanding trail attorneys. The lawyers in the Tax Division (and the supervisors in the Tax Division) could learn a thing or two from their colleagues at the Civil Division. Mary Smith would bring things up several notches by simply walking through the door. (And by the way, Eileen O’Connor was not a litigator, she was a transactional lawyer, and this contributed to the Tax Division’s abysmal record.)