The University of Hoston Law Center has a long history of strong tax teaching and scholarship. UH has a well-regarded graduate tax program, anchored by five tenured and tenure track tax faculty and supported by a prestigious group of adjunct faculty drawn from Houston’s leading law firms.
We continue our profiles of Houston’s tax faculty this week by shining the spotlight on William P. Streng:
Having practiced tax law in three large law firms, been in three U.S. Government positions (not counting the U.S. Marine Corps!) and having taught in multiple law schools, I could be perceived as a true example of the itinerant professional. However, each step had a natural progression which has been quite rewarding over a now extended tax law academic career. And, for approximately the last 20 years my academic base has been at the University of Houston Law Center.
Although I took some tax courses at Northwestern University School of Law (under Professor Willard Pedrick), my tax law interest really began after law school, as a law clerk to a Sixth Circuit Judge. I had the audacity to suggest to my judge that OID was not appropriately categorized as capital gain and that the Midland-Ross case which he (and two others) were affirming per curiam for the taxpayer would be reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court. This did occur, and many OID tax developments have subsequently followed, but in this federal tax case I also learned about perspectives on judicial conservatism at the Federal Court of Appeals level, particularly concerning tax litigation.
My professional tax career really began at a large law firm in Cincinnati working for its senior tax partner, Donald C. Alexander (several years before he became the IRS Commissioner). The time working for him was “interesting” (avoiding other more colorful descriptions), and I (unlike numerous other associates) survived the experience and ended up with a great appreciation for the rigorous tax law education he provided. He helped me obtain a position in the U.S. Treasury Department’s Office of Tax Legislative Counsel, where I experienced a quite different perspective on the evolution of tax law and policy (at a time when these matters were not driven almost exclusively from a political perspective). During that time I had the occasion to work at the Treasury Department for Jack Nolan, a giant among tax practitioners. Interestingly, I now have at the University of Houston Law Center a tax teaching colleague (Christine Agnew) who was among the first John Nolan Fellows (sponsored by the ABA Tax Section). After my Treasury Department experience, a several year interlude as the Deputy General Counsel at the Export-Import Bank of the United States was mostly devoid of tax, although when working on large international loan matters I was significantly exposed to the foreign tax credit complexities of U.S. lending institutions and the taxing systems of other countries.
By almost mere happenstance I came into contact with SMU School of Law representatives, became a professor there, and began to examine tax from the tax law academic perspective. At that time Charlie Galvin, one of the early leading tax law academics, was the SMU Dean, had confidence in me, and encouraged me as I taught many different tax courses to numerous students who have now achieved their own tax renown (in several instances not all to the good). My SMU experience was quite positive, with many fine colleagues and the opportunity to begin to grow as a tax law academic. But, after a few years a head hunter enticed me to join a large law firm in Houston (recently renamed Bracewell & Giuliani) where I continued on my tax education from a quite different perspective. This was a time when individual tax shelters were endemic and caution about the risks of such arrangements were seldom heeded, but clients thereafter reaped the harvest of large tax deficiencies. History now seems to have repeated itself in the corporate tax planning context!
With an opportunity to rejoin the tax law academic community at the University of Houston Law Center in 1985, I did so, although I do continue to maintain a consultative relationship with the law firm (where I am still educated about tax planning matters ranging from complicated corporate acquisitions to the relevance of Circular 230). At numerous intervals I have had the good fortune to enjoy short-term teaching arrangements, both in the United States and in foreign locations: in the United States at Ohio State, NYU (where I really did learn foreign tax when teaching Foreign Tax II to the NYU LL.M. Tax students), Texas and Rice; and, in foreign locations: Stockholm, Sweden, Wellington, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Leiden in The Netherlands, and Yokohama in Japan.
Traditionally, I have been a “jack of all trades,” teaching four tax classes each academic year: Federal Income Tax, Estate Planning, Corporate Tax, and U.S. International Tax. My interest in international taxation (partially from the Eximbank experience) has led me to participate for an extended period in the International Fiscal Association (and its U.S. Council) and in the European Association of Tax Law Professors. My interest in federal corporate taxation has been accentuated by more than twenty years of participation as a co-author with Boris Bittker of the corporate forms volumes (which are complementary to the Bittker & Eustice corporate tax “bible”).
I am increasingly concerned about the future of challenging law students to think seriously about tax policy issues. They can learn the tax code rules (to help explain to their parents and grandparents about eligibility for tax deductions). Perhaps not wanting to risk their inheritances, I am afraid these students are not prepared to challenge those who increasingly believe that almost any tax system is unconscionable, and that the tax burden should be placed elsewhere. The students of Generation Y (or Z?) seem less engaged in discussing important tax issues as: (1) should the income tax system be progressive (and in reality is it really progressive); (2) is the “death tax” really that “evil” (particularly when noting long term tax deferral of accrued gains and tax basis step-up at death); and, (3) does the IRS ever have legitimate tax policy positions. Since most of our law school students in the basic Federal Income Tax class will not become tax attorneys, this opportunity to challenge them to consider how the tax system should best be structured should not be missed, but accomplishing this objective seems increasingly difficult. Fortunately, many of these issues always can be debated with my terrific tax colleagues, Ira Shepard, Johnny Buckles and Christine Agnew.
For prior Houston tax faculty profiles, see:
Each Saturday, TaxProf Blog shines the spotlight on one of the 700+ tax professors in America’s law schools. We hope to help bring the many individual stories of scholarly achievements, teaching innovations, public service, and career moves within the tax professorate to the attention of the broader tax community. Please email me suggestions for future Tax Prof Profiles. For prior Tax Prof Profiles, see here.
