land. It is my high honor and personal privilege to present to you a great and able jurist, the Honorable Potter Stewart, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE

POTTER STEWART, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE,

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES JUSTICE STEWART: Chief Judge Dawson, fellow members of the Federal Judiciary, Ladies and Gentlemen:

It is a great pleasure for me to join all of you today in dedicating the new home of the United States Tax Court.

This dedication follows by 50 years the creation of the Tax Court in 1924 as the Board of Tax Appeals, and follows by 5 years the Tax Reform Act of 1969, which established the Court as a Court of record under Article I of the Constitution. The 1969 legislation endowed the Tax Court with certain judicial powers it had not previously possessed, such as the power to punish "misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice." I shall try to stay on my good behavior today.

This is the fourth Washington home for the Tax Court. Most recently, the Court has been located in the same building that houses the central offices of the Internal Revenue Service and, in all seriousness, I think the relocation of the Court is a happy symbolic development for judicial administration in general, and for tax administration in particular.

In fact as well as in form, the Tax Court has always been completely independent of the Treasury Department and of the Internal Revenue Service. But its physical location in the same building as the Internal Revenue Service has frequently created popular confusion.

It seems to me that if recent events have taught us anything, they have taught us the importance of not permitting the distinctions and separations among the institutions of our Government to become foggy or obscure. The separate housing of the Tax Court may, in the grand scheme of things, be regarded as a rather small step in the right direction, but it is certainly an appropriate and fortunate step.

It has sometimes been reported that the Supreme Court of the United States does not welcome the review of tax cases with unbridled enthusiasm. I cannot presume to speak for the Court, but my own attitude could not be better described than in the words of Judge Learned Hand, expressing the plight of a generalized Federal judge faced with a complicated problem of tax law:

the words of such an act as the Income Tax ... merely dance before my eyes in a meaningless procession: cross-reference to cross-reference, exception upon exception-couched in abstract terms that offer no handle to seize hold ofleave in my mind only a confused sense of some vitally important, but successfully concealed, purport, which it is my duty to extract, but which is within my power, if at all, only after the most inordinate expenditure of time. I know that these monsters are the result of fabulous industry and ingenuity, plugging up this hole and casting out that net, against all possible evasion; yet at times I cannot help recalling a saying of William James about certain passages of Hegel: that they were, no doubt, written with a passion of rationality; but that one cannot help wondering whether to the reader they have any significance save that the words are strung together with syntactical correctness.

Federal tax law is complex, but there is surely no body of Federal law that so immediately and so directly impinges upon the lives of so many American citizens. There is no branch of Federal law of which so many Americans are so acutely and sometimes so painfully aware. There is certainly no area of Federal law where expert and even-handed administration is more vitally important.

We in the United States are proud of a Federal tax system that largely depends upon voluntary self-assessment and selfadministration. But that system could not begin to work unless there existed in the background a judicial system which had earned the confidence of the people for its fairness, its incorruptibility, and its competence.

Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "I like to pay taxes. With them I buy civilization." In thousands of judicial decisions over the course of the last 50 years this Tax Court has kept alive the opportunity and the hope of buying civilization in the United States of America.

It is true that the Supreme Court does not review many tax cases, but I think the real reason for this is not the complexity of the cases, but rather a basic confidence in the experienced ability and perceptive understanding of the United States Tax Court. It is significant that both the very first and the very most recent of

our Court's decisions involving cases originating in the Tax Court constituted affirmances of the Tax Court's judgments. The earliest case, a 1927 decision, was Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co. This was a landmark decision involving the very judicial credentials of the Board of Tax Appeals, as it was then called. The Supreme Court in that case rejected an attempt by the Commissioner to limit the jurisdiction and powers of the Board. The Supreme Court's most recent review of a Tax Court decision was in the case of Commissioner v. Idaho Power Co., this year, in which our Court's opinion upholding the Tax Court was written by Mr. Justice Blackmun, who is here today.

The Supreme Court has always had great respect for the competence and independence of the Tax Court. In fact, in the Dobson case in 1943, the Supreme Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Jackson, adopted a rule precluding appellate review of Tax Court determinations in the absence of exceptional or extraordinary circumstances. That rule lasted for only 5 years. It was changed by Congress in 1948.

But good ideas die hard, and some Justices never fully accepted the wisdom of the Congressional verdict on the Dobson case. In the later Arrowsmith case, Mr. Justice Jackson again paid a meaningful tribute to the Tax Court, and I quote: "In spite of the gelding of Dobson I still think the Tax Court is a more competent and steady influence toward a systematic body of tax law than our sporadic omnipotence in a field beset with invisible boomerangs." That time, of course, Mr. Justice Jackson's thoughts were expressed in a dissenting opinion.

...

Appropriate judicial restraint prevents me from taking this occasion to bemoan the passing of the doctrine of the Dobson case. Nevertheless, the spirit behind that decision-a respect for the ability and integrity of the United States Tax Court-is one in which I know all the members of our Court fully concur. For this reason I am particularly glad to be here today to participate in this dedication.

I am confident that the United States Tax Court will continue to play an indispensable role in the administration of justice under our tax laws for uncounted years to come. At long last, its official home will be more fully commensurate with its high institutional mission in our national life.

CHIEF JUDGE DAWSON: Thank you, Mr. Justice Stewart. In 1947, when the House of Representatives was debating whether

the Tax Court should be made an Article III Court, the following exchange is reflected in the Congressional Record:

Mr. Robsion, who at that time was Chairman of a House Judiciary Subcommittee: "This bill will make it [the Tax Court] a Court of record."

Mr. Doughton, who was then Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee: "What about the building for this Court? Will they not want a separate building?"

Mr. Robsion: "They will hold Court where they now are. This Court can and will carry on its business as it has done and is doing."

Mr. Doughton: "But the next thing that they will be wanting is a separate building."

Mr. Robsion: "Oh, no."

Mr. Doughton: "Why, they would not be a Court if they did not want their own building."

Mr. Doughton was right. But it was a long time before we received the staunch and timely support from two strong and fair friends of the Tax Court, Senator Joseph M. Montoya of New Mexico, who unfortunately could not be with us today, and Congressman Tom Steed of Oklahoma. Had it not been for their approval of our appropriation request, this building would not be standing here today. It is therefore my distinct privilege to present to you now the Honorable Tom Steed, Chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Treasury, Postal Service and General Government.

REMARKS OF THE HONORABLE TOM STEED,

CHAIRMAN,

HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE TREASURY, POSTAL SERVICE AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT

CONGRESSMAN STEED: Chief Judge Dawson, Mr. Justice Stewart, Judges of the Tax Court, my colleague, Ken Gray, employees of the Court, distinguished guests and friends: I am very appreciative of and most happy to have this opportunity to be here today and to join with you in dedicating this new home for the United States Tax Court.

When I walked into the building for the first time today, I looked around and said that I am very pleased for one thing-this building has character. And that was before I found out that they have designed it so that the Judges will be hanging out there in mid-air when they are lowering the bar of justice on the taxpayers.

If you thought Judge Drennen had a little bit of difficulty adjusting himself to the idea that he was helping to accept this building, I will let you in on a little secret. He thought he already had it.

It is kind of strange that this building is here. It has been built all over town you know, in one way or another. One of the reasons that it has been so long in becoming a reality was because the site kept changing. Year after year we would start out to build a building one place, and before the year was out something would happen and the poor Tax Court would get pushed aside, and somebody else would get their land. How in the world they ever finally managed to hang on to this little piece of land long enough to put a building on it, I don't know. But, thank goodness, they did.

All the dignity, efficiency and beauty of this new home is most impressive, and from visiting with some of the Judges who have had occasion to tell us some of the problems that they have had in their old quarters, I gather that, whether it pleases anybody else or not, those who work here think that this is a fine accomplishment and are very happy with it. You know one of the functions of the Tax Court is to send its Judges throughout the land to hold their trials. In the course of a year I imagine they spend about as much time away from here as they do here. Now, if the Chief Judge comes up to present the budget for the next year or two and he has an item in it for a cattle prod, I won't ask any questions because I'll know that he is having trouble getting the Judges persuaded to leave these sumptuous quarters here and go out in the hinterlands to do some work.

You can't say enough about this fellow, Judge Drennen. I asked him awhile ago if he and I did not talk about a building the first time we ever met and he said: "I don't know, I can't remember as far back as that." Actually, year after year we would get such an impassioned story about the need that this Court had for a building that finally, along the way, somebody would think to ask about its budget and Judge would say: "Oh yes, I guess our Judges