DOCSLIB.ORG

Georgetown Law Journal

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL THE APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO_________ Arnold H. Leibowitz CY PRES AND THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: A DISCRIMINATING LOOK AT VERY PRIVATE SCHOOLS AND NOT SO CHARITABLE TRUSTS_____________ Stuart M. Nelkin THE DRAFT AND EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES________ Robert Layton & Ralph I. Fine THE BAAN-GORDON CASES— A NEW TWIST ON SPIN-OFFS ELECTRONIC PLAGIARISM—THE DISPLAY OF COPYRIGHTED ARTICLES ON TELEVISION CORPORATE OPPORTUNITY IN THE CLOSE CORPORATION— A DIFFERENT RESULT? VOLUME 56 NUMBER 2 DECEMBER 1967 THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 56 DECEMBER 1967 NUMBER 2 CONTENTS ARTICLES The Applicability Of Federal Law To The Commonwealth Of Puerto Rico ________________________________________ 219 By Arnold H. Leibowitz Cy Pres And The Fourteenth Amendment: A Discriminating Look At Very Private Schools And Not So Charitable Trusts _________________________________________________ 272 By Stuart M. Nelkin The Draft And Exhaustion Of Administrative Remedies------ 315 By Robert Layton and Ralph I. Fine NOTES The Baan-Gordon Cases—A New Twist On Spin-Offs_________ 337 Electronic Plagiarism—The Display Of Copyrighted Articles On Television ________________________________ 360 Corporate Opportunity In The Close Corporation—A Different Result? _____________________________________ 381 The Georgetown Law Journal Is Published Monthly, November Through January And April Through June, By The Georgetown Law Journal Association. Printing Office Is 380 E. Lorain, Oberlin, Ohio 44074. Second-Class Postage Paid At Oberlin, Ohio. Subscriptions Are Given For the Entire Volume Only And Are Payable In Advance. Domestic: $8.50 Per Year; First Issue, $2.50; All Other Current Issues, $2.00; Back Issues, $2.25. Foreign: $9.50 Per Year; Add $0.15 Postage For Each Individual Issue Requested. Mailing Address: The Georgetown Law Journal, 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Subscriptions Are Renewed Automatically Upon Expiration Unless The Subscriber Sends Timely Notice Of Termination. © 1967 by The Georgetown Law Journal Association 217 218 The Georgetown Law Journal RECENT DECISIONS A Balancing Test For The Commerce Power? Maryland v. Wirtz (D. Md. 1967) __________________________ 392 Bar Reinstatement Proceedings Following Reversal Of Convictions. In Re Barash (N.Y. 1967)________________ 400 BOOK REVIEW Cases on Contracts—Monroe Freedman___________________________ 407 Reviewed by Alan W. Scheflin statement of ownership, management, and circulation as required by the Act of Oct. 23, 1962, 39 U.S.C. § 4369 1. Filed: November 4, 1967 2. Title of publication: 77^ Georgetown Law Journal 3. Frequency of issue: 6 times annually (November-January; April-June) 4. Location of known office of publication: 380 E. Lorain Street, Oberlin, Ohio 44074. 5. Location of the headquarters or general business offices of the publishers: 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. 6. Publisher: The Georgetown Law Journal Association, 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Editor: C. Christopher Brown, 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. Managing Editor: Benjamin M. Vandegrift, 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. 7. Owner: Georgetown University Law Center, 506 E Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001. 8. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. 10. Circulation: Total No. copies printed: 3010 (12 mo. average). 3000 (last single issue). Paid circulation (all mail subscriptions) 1230, 1304. Free distribution: 1459, 1384. Total distribution: 2689, 2688. Office use, left over, unaccounted, spoiled after printing: 321, 312. Total: 3010, 3000. I certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete. (Signed) C. Christopher Brown THE GEORGETOWN LAW JOURNAL VOLUME 56 DECEMBER 1967 NUMBER 2 THE APPLICABILITY OF FEDERAL LAW TO THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO Arnold H. Leibowitz* This article explores the complex legal relationships which have de­ veloped between Puerto Rico and the United States as a result of the creation of Commonwealth status for the Island. The author begins by examining the theories under which Commonwealth has evolved. Air. Leibowitz then investigates several areas of particular interest where Commonwealth enjoys a special relationship within the federal system. In conclusion, he notes the unique opportunity afforded by the concept of commonwealth for continued growth and development. Like other polities within the United States federal structure, the pres­ ent legal relationship of Puerto Rico to the United States is the result of the applicability of various constitutional provisions and federal laws. While determining the applicability of constitutional provisions and fed­ eral laws to a State is a relatively simple matter because of established principles and practices, making the same determination with respect to Puerto Rico is quite difficult. Precedents are few and analogies are apt to be misleading since frequently Puerto Rico is treated specially under federal legislation. This complexity arises from a variety of legal and historical events, the most important of which—the establishment of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in 1950 and 1952—alone has cast doubt on the applicability to Puerto Rico of certain United States constitutional provisions and various federal laws. Further, federal legislation, both existing and prospective, is not applicable to Puerto Rico where local con­ ditions would make this undesirable. The scope of this "not locally in­ applicable” exception for federal legislation, found in Section 9 of the Puerto Rican Federal Relations Act, is extremely unclear and no consis­ tent rules have been formulated by the courts for its application. In addition to the establishment of Commonwealth, the role of the United States Constitution in relation to Puerto Rico is affected by the • The author is presently Director of the Office of Technical Assistance of the United States Department of Commerce and was formerly General Counsel of the United States-Puerto Rico Commission on the Status of Puerto Rico. The views expressed in this article are not neces­ sarily those of the Department of Commerce or the Status Commission. 219 220 The Georgetown Law Journal [Vol. 56: 219 evolution of the historic doctrine of "unincorporated versus incorporated” territories and the grant of United States citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico in 1917. Supplemental to an analysis of these legal doctrines and legislative enactments and their effect on the applicability of constitutional provi­ sions and federal statutes, this essay will examine a number of fields of the law in some detail in order to understand the singular treatment fre­ quently accorded Puerto Rico under federal law. I. The Effect of the Establishment of Commonwealth Prior to the 1950-1952 legislation authorizing the establishment of the Commonwealth, Puerto Rico was unquestionably a territory of the United States. Federal powers in Puerto Rico, exercised pursuant to the territorial clause1 and the inherent powers of the national government to acquire territory,2 were extremely broad and, perhaps, unlimited,3 except where the civil rights of the inhabitants were involved.4 Under these powers the federal government possessed and exercised the right to pass legislation, take executive action to govern local affairs,5 appoint high 1"The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States . .” U.S. Const., art. IV, § 3. 2 American Ins. Co. v. Canter, 26 U.S. (1 Pet.) 511, 542 (1828). 3 "Accordingly, we find congress possessing and exercising the absolute and undisputed power of governing and legislating for the territory of Orleans.” Sere v. Pitot, 10 U.S. (6 Cranch) 332, 337 (1810). "It [Congress] may make a void act of the territorial legislature valid, and a valid act void. In other words, it has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the Territories and all departments of the territorial governments.” National Bank v. County of Yankton, 101 U.S. 129, 133 (1879). See also District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co., 346 U.S. 100 (1953); Cincinnati Soap Co. v. United States, 301 U.S. 308 (1937). 4 The earliest case to suggest some limitations on federal actions in the territories affecting the personal liberties of the inhabitants was Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15 (1885). But in ordaining government for the Territories, and the people who inhabit them, all the discretion which belongs to legislative power is vested in Congress; and that extends, beyond all controversy, to determining by law, from time to time, the form of local government in a particular Territory, and the qualification of those who shall administer it. It rests with Congress to say whether, in a given case, any of the people, resident in the Territory, shall participate in the election of its officers or the making of its laws; and it may, therefore, take from them any right of suffrage it may previously have conferred, or at any time modify it or abridge it, as it may deem expedient. The personal and civil rights of the inhabitants of the Territories are secured to them, as to other citizens, by the principles of constitutional liberty which restrain all the agencies of government .... Id. at 44. The question of constitutional protections available to the inhabitants of territories
Recommended publications
  • A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

    A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences

    University of Arkansas ∙ System Division of Agriculture [email protected] ∙ (479) 575-7646 An Agricultural Law Research Article A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences by Christine A. Klein Originally published in WASHINGTON & LEE LAW REVIEW 55 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 403 (1998) www.NationalAgLawCenter.org A Requiem for the Rollover Rule: Capital Gains, Farmland Loss, and the Law of Unintended Consequences Christine A. Klein' Table ofContents I. Introduction........................................ 404 II. The "American Dream" Narrative: Tax Preferences for Home Owners .................................... .. 407 A. The Home Sale Preference of Former § 1034 . .. 410 B. The Ambivalent Taxation of Capital Gains 412 III. The Restrictive Subtext: The Rollover Rule 414 A. The Rollover Mechanism , 416 B. Converting the Involuntary Conversion Provision 420 C. A Case of Mistaken Identity: Is a Home Like a Ship? . .. 422 IV. The Revenue Act of 1951 424 A. War and Taxes ................................ .. 425 B. From Hot War to Cold War. ..................... .. 427 C. A Bipartisan Oasis: The Home Sale Preference . .. 432 V. The Unintended Consequences ofthe Rollover Rule: Three Hypotheses 433 A. Over-Investment in Housing 434 B. Inflation of Housing Prices 437 C. Conversion ofFarmland into Suburban Housing 438 VI. A Tale of Two Counties: A Case Study 439 A. Santa Clara County, California: 1990-96 441 B. Boulder County, Colorado: 1990-96................. 443 I. Over-Investment in Housing 446 * Associate Professor of Law, Detroit College of Law at Michigan State University. LL.M., Columbia University; J.D., University of Colorado; B.A., Middlebury College. I am grateful to Michael C.
  • Measuring Tax Burden: a Historical Perspective

    Measuring Tax Burden: a Historical Perspective

    This PDF is a selection from an out-of-print volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Fifty Years of Economic Measurement: The Jubilee of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth Volume Author/Editor: Ernst R. Berndt and Jack E. Triplett, editors Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-04384-3 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/bern91-1 Conference Date: May 12-14, 1988 Publication Date: January 1991 Chapter Title: Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective Chapter Author: B. K. Atrostic, James R. Nunns Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5981 Chapter pages in book: (p. 343 - 420) 11 Measuring Tax Burden: A Historical Perspective B. K. Atrostic and James R. Nunns 11.1 Introduction 11.1.1 Overview Measures of tax burden are indicators of how well tax policy meets one of its primary goals, equitably raising the revenues needed to run government. Equity has two aspects. The first, vertical equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with different abilities to pay. The second, hori- zontal equity, concerns the way taxes are distributed among taxpayers with the same ability to pay. Tax burden measures thus answer broad economic and social questions about the effect of tax policy on the distribution of income and wealth. The history of these measures incorporates the histories of economic and world affairs, major tax and economic policy legislation, intellectual and so- cial movements, and data and technological innovation in the fifty years since the first meeting of the Conference on Research in Income and Wealth.
  • Table of Contents

    Table of Contents

    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
  • The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C

    The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1952 The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C. O'Byrne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation O'Byrne, John C., "The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes" (1952). Minnesota Law Review. 1632. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1632 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951: ITS IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES JOHN C. O'BYRNE* T HE Revenue Act of 1951 is a phantasmagoria of taxes, sections, ideas, philosophies, benefits and loopholes. Well over a hundred different tax matters are touched specifically; the indirect results are incalculable. Income, excess profits, estate, gift and excise taxes -all received the attention of Congress in greater or lesser measure, plus a few nonclassifiable items charged to miscellaneous. The scope of the Act is appalling. Many of its provisions received wide publicity, inter alia the rate increase,' the removal of the tax free aspect of the President's expense account,2 the tax on bookies and wagers,3 the lowered admission taxes on cut-price ladies' day tickets, 4 the "television formula,"5 sale of a residence, 6 and capital gains on livestock.7 Other provisions raised little hue and cry, few huzzabs, yet in limited areas they are of immense importance to particular taxpayers.
  • Observations on the Revenue Act of 1951

    Observations on the Revenue Act of 1951

    Fordham Law Review Volume 20 Issue 3 Article 3 1951 Observations on the Revenue Act of 1951 Arthur H. Goodman Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Arthur H. Goodman, Observations on the Revenue Act of 1951, 20 Fordham L. Rev. 273 (1951). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol20/iss3/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OBSERVATIONS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951 ARTHUR H. GOODMANt A new revenue act is always an easy target and, not entirely by coincidence, the critical faculty becomes particularly active when the legislation under analysis strikes one where he can least afford it. Perhaps the only perfect revenue act would be one in which Congress, through some now unforeseeable panacea, found it possible to abolish taxes altogether. Until that happy day, however, the interplay of forces- legal, fiscal, economic and political-attending the adoption of each revenue act, will be watched with the deepest public concern, and the finished product pounced upon as unfair, unintelligible, socialistic, discriminatory, or otherwise contrary to the national interest. The Revenue Act of 1951 is pointed in the right direction; that is to say, it increases the tax collector's participation in the national income.
  • Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties an Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine Herrick K

    Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties an Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine Herrick K

    Cornell Law Review Volume 47 Article 2 Issue 4 Summer 1962 Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties An Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine Herrick K. Lidstone Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Herrick K. Lidstone, Liberal Construction of Tax Treaties An Analysis of Congressional and Administrative Limitations of an Old Doctrine , 47 Cornell L. Rev. 529 (1962) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol47/iss4/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF TAX TREATIES-AN ANALYSIS OF CONGRESSIONAL AND ADMINI- STRATIVE LIMITATIONS OF AN OLD DOCTRINE Herrick K. Lidstonet Automatic data processing, identification numbers for taxpayers, with- holding of income tax from dividends and interest, and tax subsidies for investments in new equipment, revolutionary as they are in United States tax philosophy,' could normally have been expected to obscure the bitter infighting over those portions of H.R. 10650, the Revenue Bill of 1962, which prescribe new rules for taxation of foreign income.2 However, two years of publicizing the flow of gold toward Europe have so dramatized the possibilities for income tax avoidance (and even evasion) in foreign operations and through foreign bank accounts and tax havens that envious taxpayers can almost sympathize with Ingemar 'Johansson's failure to convince the district court that he was the fighting chattel of a Swiss corporation.3 From 1954 to 1961 the political battle was for freedom from income tax on foreign earnings.
  • The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: a Short History

    The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: a Short History

    Order Code RL30304 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short History Updated April 4, 2006 Pamela J. Jackson Analyst in Public Sector Economics Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress The Federal Excise Tax on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short History Summary Excise taxes have long been a part of our country’s revenue history. In the field of gasoline taxation, the states led the way with Oregon enacting the first tax on motor fuels in 1919. By 1932, all states and the District of Columbia had followed suit with tax rates that ranged between two and seven cents per gallon. The federal government first imposed its excise tax on gasoline at a one-cent per gallon rate in 1932. The gas tax was enacted to correct a federal budgetary imbalance. It continued to support general revenue during World War II and the Korean War. Economists know the gasoline excise tax as a “manufacturer’s excise tax” because the government imposes it at production (i.e., the producer, refiner, or importer) for efficiency in collection. Particularly in the short run, when the demand for gasoline is relatively inelastic, economists recognize any increase in the gasoline tax is generally passed forward to the retailer, translating into a higher retail gas sales price. Thus, the burden for much of the tax ultimately falls on the consumer. The Highway Revenue Act of 1956 established the federal Highway Trust Fund for the direct purpose of funding the construction of an interstate highway system, and aiding in the finance of primary, secondary, and urban routes.
  • Federal Excise Taxes: an Introduction and General Analysis

    Federal Excise Taxes: an Introduction and General Analysis

    Federal Excise Taxes: An Introduction and General Analysis August 26, 2013 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R43189 Federal Excise Taxes: An Introduction and General Analysis Summary There are four common types of excise taxes: (1) sumptuary (or “sin”) taxes, (2) regulatory or environmental taxes, (3) benefit-based taxes (or user charges), and (4) luxury taxes. Sumptuary taxes were traditionally imposed for moral reasons, but are currently rationalized, in part, to discourage a specific activity that is thought to have negative spillover effects (or “externalities”) on society. Regulatory or environmental taxes are imposed to offset external costs associated with regulating public safety or to discourage consumption of a specific commodity that is thought to have negative externalities on society. Benefit-based taxes (which include user charges) are imposed to charge users of a particular public good for financing and maintenance of that public good. Lastly, luxury taxes are primarily imposed as one way to raise revenue, particularly from higher-income households. This report provides an introduction and general analysis of excise taxes. First, a brief history of U.S. excise tax policy is provided. Second, the various forms of excise taxes and their respective administrative advantages and disadvantages are described. Third, the effect of federal excise taxes on federal, state, and local tax revenue is discussed. Fourth, the economic effects of various types of excise taxes are analyzed. The effects on consumer behavior and equity among taxpayers could be important issues for assessment of current excise tax policy or for the design of new excise taxes. Lastly, a list of references to other CRS reports on specific excise taxes is presented.
  • A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something

    A Bundle of Confusion for the Income Tax: What It Means to Own Something

    Copyright 2014 by Stephanie Hunter McMahon Printed in U.S.A. Vol. 108, No. 3 A BUNDLE OF CONFUSION FOR THE INCOME TAX: WHAT IT MEANS TO OWN SOMETHING Stephanie Hunter McMahon ABSTRACT—Conceptions of property exist on a spectrum between the Blackstonian absolute dominion over an object to a bundle of rights and obligations that recognizes, if not encourages, the splitting of property interests among different people. The development of the bundle of rights conception of property occurred in roughly the same era as the enactment of the modern federal income tax. Nevertheless, when Congress enacted the tax in 1913, it did not consider how the nuances of property, and the possible splitting of the property interests in an income-producing item, might affect application of the tax. Soon after the tax’s enactment, the Treasury Department and the courts were confronted with questions of who owned, and could be taxed on, what income. As shown by an examination of family partnerships and synthetic leases, the government continues to struggle with determining who owns a sufficient property interest to be taxed because Congress has yet to define ownership for tax purposes. AUTHOR—Professor, University of Cincinnati College of Law. The author would like to extend her thanks to the Northwestern University Law Review and to Professor Charlotte Crane for organizing this symposium and to acknowledge comments on previous drafts of this Article from conference participants and my fellow faculty at the University of Cincinnati. 959 N O R T H W E S T E R N U N I V E R S I T Y L A W R E V I E W I.
  • 1933 *I959 from the New Deal to the Cold War

    1933 *I959 from the New Deal to the Cold War

    1933 *I959 From the New Deal to the Cold War I’he New Deal brought major changes to the Committee on Ways and Means. Legislative tarif€ rate-making was rep1 ments negotiated by the executive branch Agreements Act of 1934. The rity Act of 1935, creating the programs and greatly expanding government assistance to the needy. The income tax was extended through New Deal and World War I1 revenue legislation, becoming, along with Social Security, of life for most American citizens. For most tive coalition of Republicans and Southern committee, often frustrating the revenue Presidents Roosevelt and Truman. Even during the Republican admin- istration of Eisenhower, Cold War defense spending, the need to bal- mce the budget, and fears of inflation prevented any maj revenue reduction. “Our taxes must follow the he New Deal marked the beginning of the modern federal gov- intricacies of business and Ternment, and it refocused attention upon the Presidency due to not attempt to bend Franklin D. Roosevelt’s charisma and energy. The executive branch increased in size and complexity as the President centralized decision- business to the pattern of making. For example, the Bureau of the Budget was placed more simplicity we should all firmly under presidential control by its transfer from the Treasury De- like to see in laxation. ’’ partment to the Executive Offce of the President. The entire federal (Robert L. Doughton, bureaucracy expanded as Roosevelt’s Democratic administrations cre- 1940) ated program after program in an attempt to stimulate the economy. New agencies were created whose initials, such as the WPA, NRA, and CCC, were likened to alphabet soup, and the number of civilian gov- ernment employees in the capital doubled between 1929 and 1940.
  • 1 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Maryla

    1 United States District Court for the Southern District of New York State of New York, State of Connecticut, State of Maryla

    Case 1:18-cv-06427 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 1 of 52 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK STATE OF NEW YORK, STATE OF CONNECTICUT, Civil Action No. 18-cv-6427 STATE OF MARYLAND, and STATE OF NEW JERSEY, COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY Plaintiffs, AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF v. JURY REQUESTED STEVEN T. MNUCHIN, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Treasury; the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; DAVID J. KAUTTER, in his official capacity as Acting Commissioner of the United States Internal Revenue Service; the UNITED STATES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE; and the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendants. INTRODUCTION 1. The States of New York, Connecticut, Maryland, and New Jersey (the “Plaintiff States”) bring this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to invalidate the new $10,000 cap on the federal tax deduction for state and local taxes (“SALT”). Congress has included a deduction for all or a significant portion of state and local taxes in every tax statute since the enactment of the first federal income tax in 1861. The new cap effectively eviscerates the SALT deduction, overturning more than 150 years of precedent by drastically curtailing the deduction’s 1 Case 1:18-cv-06427 Document 1 Filed 07/17/18 Page 2 of 52 scope. As the drafters of the Sixteenth Amendment1 and every subsequent Congress have understood, the SALT deduction is essential to prevent the federal tax power from interfering with the States’ sovereign authority to make their own choices about whether and how much to invest in their own residents, businesses, infrastructure, and more—authority that is guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment and foundational principles of federalism.
  • 1 How Do War Financing Strategies Lead to Inequality?

    1 How Do War Financing Strategies Lead to Inequality?

    How Do War Financing Strategies Lead to Inequality? A Brief History from the War of 1812 through the Post-9/11 Wars Rosella Cappella Zielinski1 June 28, 2018 Summary This report provides estimates for how the United States government has paid for its wars, from the War of 1812 through the current post-9/11 “Global War on Terror” (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Operations), and addresses the relationship between war finance and inequality. The findings suggest that government borrowing to pay for wars leads to greater social inequality in the aftermath of the war. This happens when wars are paid for via general public debt versus a war bond campaign, particularly when combined with indirect taxes (such as sales, value-added, excise, and customs taxes) or a tax cut. Conversely, wars financed via bond campaigns targeted to low- and middle-income populations and direct taxes (such as income, property, and corporate taxes) result in greater social equality. Applying these patterns to today’s war suggests that the current combination of domestic borrowing to pay for war, accompanied by continuous tax cuts, have led and will continue to lead to rising social inequality in the US. This report estimates only how the US government met the costs of military operations. It does not include other war-related costs such as veteran’s benefits or the interest paid on money borrowed to finance wars.2 This report presents costs of war figures both in “current year dollars,” that is, in prices in effect at the time of each war, and in inflation adjusted “constant dollars” of FY2011 prices.3 1 Rosella Cappella Zielinski is Assistant Professor of Political Science at Boston University.