DOCSLIB.ORG

Washington, Tuesday, November 15, 1938

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

^ X O N A L ^ v te-—-« 'Oî r'u % DERAL REGISTER 4? 1934 ^ VOLUME 8 \ NUMBER 222 * </AHTEO ’ Washington, Tuesday, November 15, 1938 The President EXECUTIVE ORDER CONTENTS Withdrawal of P ublic Lands for U se THE PRESIDENT of the Navy D epartment for Naval e x e c u t iv e o r d e r P urposes Executive Orders: Page CALIFORNIA California, land withdrawal for use of Navy Department— 2679 P artial Revocation of Executive Orders By virtue of and pursuant to the au­ Inspection of income, etc., tax of December 5, 1913, J anuary 13, 1915, thority vested in me by the act of June returns by Special Joint and February 23, 1928 25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, as amended Congressional Committee to by the act Qf August 24, 1912, c. 369, 37 PUBLIC WATER RESTORATION NO. 81 make an investigation of the Stat. 497, and subject to the conditions Tennessee Valley "Authority- 2680 therein expressed and to any valid ex­ Wyoming, Arizona, and California isting rights, it is ordered that the fol­ Inspection of income, etc., tax returns filed after June 16, By virtue of and pursuant to the au­ lowing-described public land in the State of California be, and it is hereby, with­ 1933, and returns under thority vested in me by section 1 of the Title IX of Social Security act of June 25, 1910, c. 421, 36 Stat. 847, drawn from settlement, location, sale, entry, or other form of appropriation, A c t_____________________ 2679 the Executive Orders of December 5, and reserved for the exclusive use of the Wyoming, Arizona and Calif or-' 1913, January 13, 1915, as modified by Navy Department for naval purposes: nia, Public Water Restora­ Interpretation No. 70 of June 16, 1928, San Bernardino Meridian tion No. 81----------------------- 2679 and February 23, 1928, creating, respec­ T. 16 S., R. 10 E., sec. 35, 640 acres. tively, Public Water Reserves Nos. 12, 24, RULES, REGULATIONS, and 114, are hereby revoked insofar as This order ¿hall remain in force until ORDERS revoked by the President or by act of they pertain to or affect the following- Congress. T itle 7—Agriculture : described lands in Wyoming, Arizona, F ranklin D R oosevelt Agricultural Adjustment Admin­ and California: The White H ouse, istration: Wyoming November 12, 1938. Cotton marketing quotas on Sixth Principal Meridian [No. 8004] 1939 crop, instructions for holding referendum on— 2681 In Public Water Reserve No. 12: [F. R. Doc. 38-3404; Filed, November 12,1938; T. 44 N., R. 70 W., 11:29 a. m .l Flue-cured tobacco quotas, sec. 30, S ^ S W ^ ; 1939, procedure-------------- 2683 sec. 31, Ni/aNW^. Bureau of Entomology and Plant EXECUTIVE ORDER Arizona Quarantine: Authorizing the Inspection of Income, Treatment requirement of Gila and Salt River Meridian Excess-P rofits, and Capital S tock T ax noninfested Holland nar­ In Public Water Reserve No. 24: R eturns, Estate and Gift Tax R eturns cissus bulbs as a condition T. 38 N„ R. 5 E„ sec. 6, lot 2 (NW & NEft), F iled After June 16, 1933, and R e­ of entry revoked------------- 268Q SW%NEi4. turns U nder T itle IX of the Social T itle 9— Animals and Animal California S ecurity Act P roducts: San Bernardino Meridian By . virtue of and pursuant to the au­ Bureau of Animal Industry: thority vested in me by section 257 (a) of In Public Water Reserve No. 114: Declaring names of counties T. 12 S., R. 11 E., sec. 14, NE%, N&NW&, the Revenue Act of 1926 (44 Stat., 9, 51); placed in modified tu­ Ei/2SE&. section 55 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 berculosis-free accredited Stat., 791, 809); section 55 of the Revenue areas__________________ 2685 F ranklin D R oosevelt Act of 1932 (47 Stat., 169, 189), as T itle 12—Banking and Credit: The W hite H ouse, amended by section 218 (h) of the Na­ Board of Governors of the Fed­ November 10, 1938. tional Industrial Recovery Act (48 Stat., eral Reserve System: 195, 209); sections 215 (e) and 216 (b) [No. 80031 of the National Industrial Recovery Act Interlocking bank directorates under the Clayton. Act— 2685 [F. R. Doc. 38-3403; Filed, November 12, 1938; (48 Stat., 195, 208); sections 55 (a), 701 11:29 a. m.] (e). and 702 (b) of the Revenue Act of (Continued on next page) 2679 2680 FEDERAL REGISTER, Tuesday, November 15, 1938 CONTENTS—Continued Act of 1928 (44 Stat. 9, 51); section 55 of the Revenue Act of 1928 (45 Stat. 791, Civil Aeronautics Authority—Con. 809) ; section 55 of the Revenue Act of FEDERA^REtlSTEB Hearings on applications for 1932 (47 Stat. 169, 189) as amended by certificates of public con­ section 218 (h) of the National Indus­ venience and necessity—Con. PaSe trial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 195, 209) • Boston-Maine Airways, Inc___ 2694 section 216 (b) of the National Indus­ Western Air Express Corp__ _ 2694 trial Recovery Act (48 Stat. 195, 208); Published by the Division of the Federal Department of Labor: sections 55 (a) and 702 (b) of the Rev­ Register, The National Archives, pursuant to Division of Public Contracts: enue Act of 1934 (48 Stat, 680, 770); the authority contained in the Federal Photographic Supplies Indus­ Register Act, approved July 26, 1935 (49 section 106 (c) of the Revenue Act of Stat. L. 500), tinder regulations prescribed try, hearing on determi­ 1935 (49 Stat. 1014, 1019); and section by the Administrative Committee, with the nation of prevailing min­ 55 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936 (49 approval of the President. imum w ages___________ 2693 The Administrative Committee consists of Stat'. 1648), it is hereby ordered that th e Archivist or Acting Archivist, an officer Wage and Hour Division: income and excess-profits tax returns of the Department of Justice designated by Messengers, review of deter­ made under the Revenue Act of 1926, the Attorney General, and the Public Printer mination denying appli­ the Revenue Act of 1928, the Revenue or Acting Public Printer. cations to employ at The daily issue of the F ederal R egister Act of 1932, the National Industrial Re­ will be furnished by mail to subscribers, free wages lower than applica­ covery Act, the Revenue Act of 1934, of postage, for $1 per month or $10 per year; ble minimum specified__ 2694 the Revenue Act of 1935, and the Rev­ single copies 10 cents each; payable in ad­ vance. Remit by money order payable to Rural Electrification Administra­ enue Act of 1936, or under any of such Superintendent of Documents, Government tion: Acts as amended, for the calendar year Printing Office, Washington, D. C. Allocation of funds for loans— 2695 1925 and all subsequent taxable years Correspondence concerning the publica­ to and including the calendar year 1937, tion of the Federal R egister should be ad­ dressed to the Director, Division of the shall be open to inspection by the Special Federal Register, The National Archives. 1934 (48 Stat., 680, 698, 770) ; sections Joint Congressional Committee to make Washington, D. C. 105 (e) and 106 (c) of the Revenue Act an investigation of the Tennessee Val­ of 1935 (49 Stat., 1014, 1018, 1019) ; sec­ ley Authority, or any duly authorized tion 905 of the Social Security Act (49 subcommittee thereof, for the purpose of Stat., 620, 641) ; sections 55 (a), 351 (c), CONTENTS—Continued carrying out the provisions of Public and 503 (a) of the Revenue Act of 1936 Resolution 83, approved April 4, 1938, T itle 24—Housing Credit: (49 Stat., 1648, 1671, 1733, 1738) ; and (Seventy-fifth Congress) (52 Stat. 154); Home Owners’ Loan Corpora­ sections 55 (a), 409, 601 (e), and 602 (c) such inspection to be in accordance and tion: Page of the Revenue Act of 1938 (52 Stat., 447, upon compliance with the rules and reg­ Marketing of fruits and other 564, 565, 567), it is hereby Ordered that ulations prescribed by the Secretary of produce of California (1) income, excess-profits, and capital the Treasury in the Treasury Decision properties__ ____ _______ ! 2686 stock tax returns made under the Reve­ relating to the inspection of returns by T itle 26—Internal R evenue: nue Act of 1938, the Revenue Act of 1936, that committee, approved by me this Bureau of Internal Revenue: the Revenue Act of 1935, the Revenue Act date.1 Income tax, cancelation of in­ of 1934, the National Industrial Recovery This order shall be published in the debtedness and reduction Act, the Revenue Act of 1932, the Reve­ F ederal R egister. of basis of debtor’s prop­ nue Act of 1932 as amended by the Na­ F ranklin D Roosevelt erty in proceedings under tional Industrial Recovery ¡.Act, and under Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the prior Revenue Acts, (2) estate and T he White H ouse as amended___________ _ 2686 gift tax returns made under the Revenue Nov. 14,1938. \ Regulations governing inspec­ Act of 1932 or the Revenue Act of 1932 as [No. 8006] tion of tax returns by amended, and filed after June 16, 1933, Special Joint Congres­ (3) returns made under Title IX of the [F. R. Doc. 38-3418; Filed, November 14,1938; sional Committee to make Social Security Act, and (4) returns 12:31p.m .] an investigation of Ten­ made under any of the said Acts as nessee Valley Authority_ 2692 amended, shall be open to inspection in Regulations governing in­ accordance and upon compliance with Rules, Regulations, Orders spection of tax returns of the rules and regulations prescribed by individuals, partnerships, the Secretary of the Treasury in the TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE estates, trusts, etc_______ 2689 Treasury Decision relating to the inspec­ T itle 29—Labor: tion of such returns, approved by me BUREAU OF ENTOMOLOGY AND Children’s Bureau: this date.1 PLANT QUARANTINE Child labor regulations, ac­ F ranklin D R oosevelt ceptance of State certifi­ [B .E .P.Q .— 482] T he White House, ca tes_- _____ 2693 November 12, 1938.
Recommended publications
  • RESTORING the LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E

    RESTORING the LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E

    COPYRIGHT © 2017 VIRGINIA LAW REVIEW ASSOCIATION RESTORING THE LOST ANTI-INJUNCTION ACT Kristin E. Hickman* & Gerald Kerska† Should Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents be eligible for pre-enforcement judicial review? The D.C. Circuit’s 2015 decision in Florida Bankers Ass’n v. U.S. Department of the Treasury puts its interpretation of the Anti-Injunction Act at odds with both general administrative law norms in favor of pre-enforcement review of final agency action and also the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the nearly identical Tax Injunction Act. A 2017 federal district court decision in Chamber of Commerce v. IRS, appealable to the Fifth Circuit, interprets the Anti-Injunction Act differently and could lead to a circuit split regarding pre-enforcement judicial review of Treasury regulations and IRS guidance documents. Other cases interpreting the Anti-Injunction Act more generally are fragmented and inconsistent. In an effort to gain greater understanding of the Anti-Injunction Act and its role in tax administration, this Article looks back to the Anti- Injunction Act’s origin in 1867 as part of Civil War–era revenue legislation and the evolution of both tax administrative practices and Anti-Injunction Act jurisprudence since that time. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1684 I. A JURISPRUDENTIAL MESS, AND WHY IT MATTERS ...................... 1688 A. Exploring the Doctrinal Tensions.......................................... 1690 1. Confused Anti-Injunction Act Jurisprudence .................. 1691 2. The Administrative Procedure Act’s Presumption of Reviewability ................................................................... 1704 3. The Tax Injunction Act .................................................... 1707 B. Why the Conflict Matters ....................................................... 1712 * Distinguished McKnight University Professor and Harlan Albert Rogers Professor in Law, University of Minnesota Law School.
  • The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws

    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws

    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation University of Virginia Former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation February 2016 Draft prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society’s program on The History and Role of the Joint Committee: the Joint Committee and Tax History Comments welcome. THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE JCT@90 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 25, 2016 The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin* February 11, 2016 preliminary draft [Note to conference attendees and other readers: This paper describes the work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT)1 that led to codification of the tax laws in 1939. I hope eventually to incorporate this material into a larger project involving the “early years” of the JCT, roughly the period spanning the committee’s creation in 1926 and the retirement of Colin Stam in 1964. Stam served on the staff for virtually this entire period; he was first hired (on a temporary basis) in 1927 as assistant counsel, became staff counsel in 1929, and then served as Chief of Staff from 1938 until 1964. He is by far the longest‐serving Chief of Staff the committee has ever had. The conclusions in this draft are still preliminary as I have not yet completed my research. I welcome any comments or questions.] Possibly the most significant accomplishment of the JCT and its staff during the committee’s “early years” was the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
  • The Federal Definition of Tax Partnership

    The Federal Definition of Tax Partnership

    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship Winter 2006 The edeF ral Definition of Tax Partnership Bradley T. Borden [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation 43 Hous. L. Rev. 925 (2006-2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. ARTICLE THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF TAX PARTNERSHIP Bradley T. Borden* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODU CTION ...................................................................... 927 II. THE DEFINITIONS OF MULTIMEMBER TAx ENTITIES ............ 933 A. The EstablishedDefinitions .......................................... 933 B. The Open Definition: Tax Partnership......................... 936 III. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF PARTNERSHIP TAXATION ............ 941 A. The Effort to Disregard................................................. 941 B. The Imposition of Tax Reporting Requirements ........... 943 C. The Statutory Definition of Tax Partnership............... 946 D. The 1954 Code: An Amalgam of the Entity and Aggregate Theories........................................................ 948 E. The Section 704(b) Allocation Rules and Assignment of Incom e ....................................................................... 951 F. The Anti-Abuse Rules .................................................... 956 * Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas; LL.M. and J.D., University of Florida Levin College of Law; M.B.A. and B.B.A., Idaho State University. I thank Steven A. Bank, Stanley L. Blend, Terrence F. Cuff, Steven Dean, Alex Glashausser, Christopher Hanna, Brant J. Hellwig, Dennis R. Honabach, Erik M. Jensen, L. Ali Khan, Martin J. McMahon, Jr., Stephen W. Mazza, William G. Merkel, Robert J. Rhee, William Rich, and Ira B.
  • International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 147 The NFTC Foreign Income Project: International Tax Policy for the 21st Century Part Two Relief of International Double Taxation NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 148 NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 149 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit Chapter 1 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit I. Introduction The United States’ current system for taxing international income was creat- ed during the period from 1918 through 1928.1 From the introduction of 149 the income tax (in 1913 for individuals and in 1909 for corporations) until 1918, foreign taxes were deducted in the same way as any other business expense.2 In 1918, the United States enacted the foreign tax credit,3 a unilat- eral step taken fundamentally to redress the unfairness of “double taxation” of foreign-source income. By way of contrast, until the 1940s, the United Kingdom allowed a credit only for foreign taxes paid within the British 1 For further description and analysis of this formative period of U.S. international income tax policy, see Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O’Hear, The ‘Original Intent’ of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L.J. 1021, 1026 (1997) [hereinafter “Graetz & O’Hear”]. The material in this chapter is largely taken from this source. 2 The reasoning behind the international tax aspects of the 1913 Act is difficult to discern from the historical sources. One scholar has concluded “it is quite likely that Congress gave little or no thought to the effect of the Revenue Act of 1913 on the foreign income of U.S.
  • The Revenue Act of 1934

    The Revenue Act of 1934

    March, 1935 THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 GEORGE GRAYSON TYLER t AND JOHN P. OHL X Congress, probably inspired by the disclosures of the investigations of the Banking and Currency Committee, passed House Resolution 183, on June 9, 1933, thereby authorizing the Ways and Means Committee to in- vestigate methods of preventing the evasion and avoidance of taxes, means of simplifying the revenue laws and possible new sources of revenue. Pur- suant to this Resolution, a Subcommittee of the Committee on \Ways and Means conducted an inquiry prior to the convening of the second session of the 73d Congress. The Subcommittee filed "A Preliminary Report" ' on December 4, 1933, upon the subjects, of tax avoidance, evasion and sim- plification. In response to the Subcommittee's recommendations, the then Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., issued a state- ment 2 differing in many important particulars from the conclusions reached by the Subcommittee. As a result of the above investigations, H. R. 7835 was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. After extensive hearings 3 the bill was reported out with amendments by the Com- 4 mittee and a report was submitted thereon. On February 21, 1934, the House passed the bill with minor committee amendments. 5 Then, having been introduced in the Senate, the bill was referred to the Finance Com- mittee, which, after further hearings,0 reported it 7 with substantial amend- ments. Further material changes were made on the floor of the Senate s before passage. Thereafter, the Conference Committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses made its recommendations reconciling the differ- j- Formerly assistant to Professor Roswell Magill, former assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; member of the New York Bar.
  • Taxnotes® Volume 152, Number 3 July 18, 2016 C a Nlss21.Alrgt Eevd a Nlssde O Li Oyih Naypbi Oano Hr at Content

    Taxnotes® Volume 152, Number 3 July 18, 2016 C a Nlss21.Alrgt Eevd a Nlssde O Li Oyih Naypbi Oano Hr at Content

    taxnotes® Volume 152, Number 3 July 18, 2016 (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. Tax Analysts does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. Debt-Equity Controversy Echoes Entity Classification Debate By David F. Levy, Nickolas P. Gianou, and Kevin M. Jones Reprinted from Tax Notes, July 18, 2016, p. 363 SPECIAL REPORT (C) Tax Analysts 2016. All rights reserved. does not claim copyright in any public domain or third party content. tax notes™ Debt-Equity Controversy Echoes Although folks far more talented and influential than the three of us will undoubtedly write on Entity Classification Debate weighty topics such as the regulations’ validity, by David F. Levy, Nickolas P. Gianou, and their arbitrary nature, and so on, we thought it Kevin M. Jones might be interesting to explore one aspect of the proposed regulations not yet discussed: the para- llels between Treasury’s current approach on debt- equity classification and its initial approach (beginning in the 1920s) on entity classification. Although the questions may at first blush seem completely unrelated, whether a particular corpo- rate financial instrument is classified for tax pur- poses as debt or equity and whether a particular business entity is classified for tax purposes as a corporation or a passthrough are, from the perspec- David F. Levy Nickolas P. Gianou Kevin M. Jones tive of corporate tax policy, two sides of the same David F. Levy is a partner, and Nickolas P. coin. And given that Treasury’s initial pre-check- Gianou and Kevin M. Jones are tax associates, with the-box approach to entity classification proved to Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP.
  • The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-Of-Proof Rules

    The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-Of-Proof Rules

    Florida State University College of Law Scholarship Repository Scholarly Publications 3-1999 The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of-Proof Rules Steve R. Johnson Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Steve R. Johnson, The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of- Proof Rules, 84 IOWA LAW REVIEW 413 (1999), Available at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/articles/253 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Scholarly Publications by an authorized administrator of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Dangers of Symbolic Legislation: Perceptions and Realities of the New Burden-of-Proof Rules Steve R. Johnson* There is a growing political science and legal literature on the use of symbolism in the political and legislative process.' Tax law is a natural arena for such inquiry as tax law touches virtually every type of human in- teraction, is heavily value-driven, and is a perennial political battleground.' This article examines a recent tax law change-the enactment of new bur- den-of-proof rules in the summer of 1998--concluding that it is a perni- cious exercise in symbolic legislation. Burden-of-proof rules determine how much evidence a party must in- troduce at trial in order to prevail. In theory, a dispute-resolution system could operate without established burden-of-proof rules, but such a system would impose greater demands of perspicacity on its triers of fact and likely would be less predictable as to its outcomes? Thus, discussion and debate about what burden-of-proof rules should prevail have been part of our legal *Associate Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law-Bloomington.
  • Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked Stephanie Hunter Mcmahon

    Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked Stephanie Hunter Mcmahon

    Journal of Legislation Volume 37 | Issue 2 Article 1 5-1-2011 Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked Stephanie Hunter McMahon Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg Recommended Citation McMahon, Stephanie Hunter (2011) "Political Hot Potato: How Closing Loopholes Can Get Policymakers Cooked," Journal of Legislation: Vol. 37: Iss. 2, Article 1. Available at: http://scholarship.law.nd.edu/jleg/vol37/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journal of Legislation at NDLScholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Legislation by an authorized administrator of NDLScholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. POLITICAL HOT POTATO: HOW CLOSING LOOPHOLES CAN GET POLICYMAKERS COOKED Stephanie HunterMcMahon* ABSTRACT Loopholes in the law are weaknesses that allow the law to be circumvented Once created, they prove hard to eliminate. A case study of the evolving tax unit used in the federal income tax explores policymakers' response to loopholes. The 1913 income tax created an opportunity for wealthy married couples to shift ownership of family income between spouses, then to file separately, and, as a result, to reduce their collective taxes. In 1948, Congress closed this loophole by extending the income-splitting benefit to all married taxpayers filing jointly. Congress acted only after the federal judiciary and Treasury Department pleaded for congressional reform and, receiving none, reduced their roles policing wealthy couples' tax abuse. The other branches would no longer accept the delegated power to regulate the tax unit. By examining these developments, this article explores the impact of the separation of powers on the closing of loopholes and adds to our understandingof how the government operates.
  • James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the “Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,” and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff

    James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the “Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,” and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff

    NYU/UCLA TAX SYMPOSIUM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AT 100 OCTOBER 19, 2012 James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the “Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,” and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff George K. Yin University of Virginia School of Law September 27, 2012 DRAFT Abstract In early 1924, James Couzens was a Republican Senator from Michigan and reportedly the richest member of Congress. Andrew Mellon was beginning his fourth year as Secretary of the Treasury — a service that would eventually span 11 years under three Republican Administrations — and one of the wealthiest persons in the entire country. This article describes how a feud between these two men, an ensuing investigation led by Couzens of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) (predecessor to the modern‐day IRS), and a tax case against Couzens that was described as the “greatest tax suit in the history of the world,” helped lead to creation of the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and its staff. The events — filled with political intrigue, backstabbing (real or imagined), and unintended consequences — antagonized Congress’s relationship with the executive branch, but improved cooperation between the House and Senate, and both were instrumental in the JCT’s creation. The story also provides insight on the unique role the JCT has played in Congress for over 85 years. Finally, the article explains how creation of the JCT became entangled with two of the most contentious tax issues of the day — the publicity of tax return information and the depletion allowance for oil and gas production — and played a role in changing the law in both areas.
  • Democracy in America at Work: the History of Labor's Vote in Corporate

    Democracy in America at Work: the History of Labor's Vote in Corporate

    Democracy in America at Work: The History of Labor’s Vote in Corporate Governance Ewan McGaughey* ABSTRACT Can there be democracy in America at work? The historical division between democracy in politics and hierarchy in the economy is under strain. Hierarchical interests in the economy are shifting their model of power into politics, and yet a commitment to revive the law is resurgent. Central examples are the proposed Accountable Capitalism Act, Reward Work Act, Workplace Democracy Acts, and Employees’ Pension Security Acts. They would create a right for employees to elect 40% of directors on $1 billion company boards, a right for employees to elect one-third of directors on other listed company boards and require one-half employee representation on single-employer pension plans. All challenge long held myths: that labor’s involvement in corporate governance is foreign to American tradition, that when codified in law, labor voice is economically inefficient; that the legitimate way to have voice in the economy is by buying stocks; or that labor voice faces insurmountable legal obstacles. This Article shows these myths are mistaken, by exploring the history and evidence from 1861. The United States has one of the world’s strongest traditions of democracy at work. Economic democracy has not been more widespread primarily because it was suppressed by law. Americans favor voice at work, while asset managers who monopolize shareholder votes with “other people’s money” enjoy no legitimacy at all. This Article concludes that, even without the federal government, and by recreating themselves as laboratories of democracy and enterprise, states can adapt the current proposals and rebuild a living law.
  • 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.
  • Ajay K. Mehrotra Date: March 22, 2015 Re

    Ajay K. Mehrotra Date: March 22, 2015 Re

    INDIANA UNIVERSITY MAURER SCHOOL OF LAW Bloomington To: Participants of the Ostrom Workshop From: Ajay K. Mehrotra Date: March 22, 2015 Re: Workshop Paper and Presentation Thanks in advance for the opportunity to present, and get feedback on, the attached co- authored paper (with Steven Bank). This paper is an early draft of a chapter to be included in a manuscript for an edited volume on “The Corporation and American Democracy” (eds. Naomi Lamoreaux and Bill Novak). In my brief presentation time, I’ll elaborate on the larger project of which this paper is a part. One of the overarching themes of the edited volume is to explore the historical role of business corporations in the development of American democracy. As you’ll see, our paper attempts to contribute to that theme by investigating the relationship between corporate taxation and American democracy in the first half of the twentieth century. Steve and I would welcome comments and suggestions that can help us underscore the democratic aspects in the development of corporate tax laws and policies. Thanks. 211 S. Indiana Avenue Bloomington, IN 47405-7001 (812) 855-7443 Corporate Taxation and the Regulation of Early Twentieth-Century American Business Steven A. Bank UCLA School of Law Ajay K. Mehrotra Maurer School of Law & History Department Indiana University, Bloomington Please do not quote or cite without the authors’ permission. Thanks. Abstract: In the early twentieth century, the taxation of modern business corporations became increasingly important to the development of American democracy. During that time, governments at all levels began to view business corporations not only as sources of badly needed public revenue, but also as potentially dangerous wielders of concentrated economic power.