DOCSLIB.ORG

Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R. § 1.170A-9(c)(1), that is, an organization whose “primary function is the presentation of formal instruction” and whose noneducational activities “are merely incidental to the educational activities.” Ruling on cross motions for summary judgment, the district court held that the Treasury Regulation is invalid “because it adds requirements -- the primary-function and merely-incidental tests -- Congress intended not to include in the statute.” Mayo Clinic v. United States, 412 F. Supp. 3d 1038, 1This opinion traces the evolution of the IRC over more than a century. Unless specified in the text, we refer to the Revenue Code as of the date of this dispute. 2The taxpayer for refund years 2003 and 2005-07 was the Mayo Foundation, which merged with Mayo Clinic Rochester in 2010. Mayo, the plaintiff in this case, is the successor by merger to the Mayo Foundation and was the taxpayer for refund years 2010-2012. The reorganization is irrelevant to the issues on appeal. -2- 1042 (D. Minn. 2019). The court granted judgment for Mayo, concluding it is an educational organization as defined in the statute. The United States appeals, arguing, first, the Treasury Regulation is a valid interpretation of the statutory term “educational organization,” whether that term is considered unambiguous (as both parties contend) or ambiguous; and second, applying the regulation, the government is entitled to summary judgment because Mayo is not an educational organization as a matter of law. We review the interpretation of the IRC and Treasury Regulations de novo. Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Rsch. v. United States, 568 F.3d 675, 676 (8th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 562 U.S. 44 (2011). We conclude the regulation is valid, but only in part, and that application of the statute as reasonably construed by the regulation to Mayo’s tax years in question cannot be determined as a matter of law on this summary judgment record. Accordingly, we reverse and remand. I. The Regulation’s Validity The principal question on appeal is whether the Treasury Regulation at issue is a valid interpretation of complex, interwoven provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. Our analytical path to resolving this difficult question is well established: When a court reviews an agency’s construction of the statute which it administers, it is confronted with two questions. First, applying the ordinary tools of statutory construction, the court must determine whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. But if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency’s answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute. [T]he question . is always, simply, whether the agency has stayed within the bounds of its statutory authority. -3- City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290, 296 (2013) (quotations omitted; emphasis in original); see Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 842 (1984); cf. Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2416 (2019). The Supreme Court has expressly held that judicial review of Treasury Regulations is governed by this “uniform approach.” Mayo Found., 562 U.S. at 55. “Generally speaking, the language in the Revenue Act, just as in any statute, is to be given its ordinary meaning.” Commissioner v. Brown, 380 U.S. 563, 571 (1965) (Clay Brown). As with other complex statutes, words in the IRC are read in the context in which they are used and in the context of the statute as a whole. It is often essential to understand “the regulatory background against which a [tax statute] was enacted” to determine “the limited nature of the problem the provision was enacted to address.” United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., 572 U.S. 141, 151 (2014). “Treasury Regulations interpreting the Internal Revenue Code are entitled to substantial deference.” Mayo Found., 568 F.3d 675, 679 (8th Cir. 2009), aff’d, 562 U.S. 44 (2011). We first set forth the relevant portions of the statute and regulation at issue: 26 U.S.C. § 170(b): (1) Individuals. the deduction provided in subsection (a) shall be limited as provided in the succeeding subparagraphs. (A) General rule. -- Any charitable contribution to -- (ii) an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on; (iii) an organization the principal purpose or functions of which are the providing of medical or hospital care or medical education or medical research . -4- shall be allowed to the extent that the aggregate of such contributions does not exceed 50 percent of the taxpayer’s contribution base for the taxable year. 26 C.F.R. § 1.170A-9: (c) (1) Educational organization. An educational organization is described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) if its primary function is the presentation of formal instruction and it normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on. It does not include organizations engaged in both educational and noneducational activities unless the latter are merely incidental to the educational activities. Section 170 permits a tax deduction for charitable contributions made to certain organizations. Subsection (b) allows a deduction up to “50 percent of the taxpayer’s contribution base” for contributions to some organizations (“50% limit organizations”), including organizations listed in § 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). Meanwhile, “other contributions” are limited to “30 percent of the taxpayer’s contribution base.” IRC § 170(b)(1)(B)(i). This includes a contribution to or for the use of an organization “organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, . or educational purposes.” IRC § 170(c)(2)(B). Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) limits the enhanced deduction to contributions to educational organizations that meet its criteria of faculty, curriculum, students, and place. This does not include all organizations that engage in tax exempt educational activities. See IRC §§ 501(c)(3), 170(c)(2)(B). In concluding that Treasury Regulation § 1.170A-9(c)(1) invalidly adds conditions Congress did not intend, the district court primarily relied on the established principle that, “[w]hen Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another -- let alone in the very next provision -- this Court presumes that Congress intended a different meaning.” Loughrin v. United States, 573 U.S. 351, 358, (2014) (cleaned up), quoting Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). Comparing the two classes of 50% limit organizations in -5- subsections (ii) and (iii), the district court determined that under the Russello principle, Congress unambiguously intended to exclude from subsection (ii) the primary purpose or function test it included in subsection (iii). “In determining whether a particular regulation carries out the congressional mandate in a proper manner, we look to see whether the regulation harmonizes with the plain language of the statute, its origin, and its purpose.” Nat’l Muffler Dealers Ass’n v. United States, 440 U.S. 472, 477 (1979).3 To determine whether the statute the agency interpreted is unambiguous, we turn to the statutory history and other “traditional tools” of statutory construction. “It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that the words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.” Davis v. Mich. Dept. of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989). Although relevant, the Russello principle is not controlling, and we conclude the district court failed to give sufficient consideration to the origins of the statutory charitable exemption and the Treasury Regulation at issue, and the manner in which the current statutory provisions have been added to the IRC and modified over more than a century.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: a Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, but a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 49 | Issue 1 Article 1 1-1997 Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity Gordon T. Butler Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Gordon T. Butler, Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity, 49 Hastings L.J. 1 (1997). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol49/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Line Item Veto and the Tax Legislative Process: A Futile Effort at Deficit Reduction, But a Step Toward Tax Integrity by GORDON T. BUTLER* Table of Contents Introduction ...................................................................... 2 I. The Problem of the Deficit and the Budget Process ............... 4 II. The Line Item Veto ...................................................... 21 A. 1995 Congressional Proposals ................................. 21 (1) House Bill 2 and "Enhanced Rescission" ................ 22 (2) Senate Bill 4 and "Separate Enrollment". ............... 24 B. The Line Item Veto of 1996 ...................................... 26 (1) The Act ....................................................... 26 (2) Constitutionality of the Line Item Veto .................. 31 (a) Separate Enrollment Form ............................... 41 (b) Enhanced Rescission Form ............................ 43 (3) Comparison with State Item Veto Authority ............... 52 (4) Critique of the Line Item Veto Act of 1996 ............. 56 m. Are "Tax Expenditures" Expenditures? .........
    [Show full text]
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And
    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
    [Show full text]
  • Vol. 6, No. 2: Full Issue
    Denver Journal of International Law & Policy Volume 6 Number 2 Spring Article 11 May 2020 Vol. 6, no. 2: Full Issue Denver Journal International Law & Policy Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/djilp Recommended Citation 6 Denv. J. Int'l L. & Pol'y This Full Issue is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Denver Sturm College of Law at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Denver Journal of International Law & Policy by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],dig- [email protected]. DENVER JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 1976-1977 Denver Journal OF INTERNATIONAL LAW AND POLICY VOLUME 6 NUMBER 2 SPRING 1977 INTERNATIONAL ASPECTS OF THE TAX REFORM ACT OF 1976 TAXING BoYcorrs AND BRIBES ........................................... G. C . Hufbauer J. G. Taylor 589 The authors examine the tax penalty provisions of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and the Export Administration Act Amendments of 1977 in relation to U.S. persons who "participate in or cooperate with" international boycotts or bribery. The article discusses the various types of international boycotts and the penalty, computational, and reporting requirements imposed on participants as clarified by the Treasury Guidelines and Revenue Proce- dures. The authors conclude with a discussion of the novelty, complexity, and potential impact of the legislation. TAKING SIDES: AN OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE TO THE ARAB BOYCOTT ............................................ John M . Tate Ralph B. Lake 613 The current legislative scheme in opposition to the Arab boycott is generally directed against the Arab League countries' secondary and tertiary, indirect forms of boycott.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Economic Way Of
    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • Description of Provisions Listed for Further Hearings by the Committee on Finance On
    [COMMITTEE PEINT] DESCRIPTION OF PROVISIONS LISTED FOR FURTHER HEARINGS BY THE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE ON JULY 20, 21, AND 22, 1976 Prepaeed for the Use of the COMMITTEE ON FINANCE BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION JULY 19, 1976 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-376 WASHINGTON : 1976 JCS-30-76 •/[ TABLE OF CONTENTS Paee I. Introduction 1 II. Description of Provisions : 2 1. At-Risk Limitation for Limited Partners (see. 210 of the bill) 2 2. Refunds of Unutilized Investment Tax Credits (sec. 802 of the bill) 4 3. Expiring Investment and Foreign Tax Credits (sec. 803 of the bill) ,5 4. Investment Credit in the Case of Vessels Constructed from Capital Construction Funds (sec. 806 of the I»ill) (^ 5. Foreign Trusts Having One or More U.S. Beneficiaries To Be Taxed Currently to Grantor (sec. 1011 of the bill) 7 6. Investment in U.S. Property by Controlled Foreign Corpora- tions (sec. 1021 of the bill) 7 7. Exclusion from Subpart F of Certain Earnings of Insurance Companies (sec. 1023 of the bill) 8 8. Shipping Profits of Foreign Corporations (sec. 1024 of the bill) .____ 10 9. Limitation on Definition of Tax Haven Income for Agricultural Products (sec. 1025 of the bill) 11 10. Repeal of the Per-Country Foreign Tax Credit Limitation ( sec. 1031 of the bill) 12 11. Recapture of Foreign Losses (sec. 1032 of the bill) 13 12. Transitional Carryback of Foreign Taxes on Oil and Gas Extraction Income (sec. 103.> of the bill) : 15 13. Transitional Rule for Recapture of Foreign Oil-Related Losses (sec.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951 Walter W
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1952 An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951 Walter W. Heller Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Heller, Walter W., "An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951" (1952). Minnesota Law Review. 2484. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2484 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]. AN ECONOMIST'S REFLECTIONS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951 WNTALTER W. HELLER* T HE ECONOMIST, no less than the legal practitioner, finds the individual income tax provisions the most interesting aspect of the Revenue Act of 1951. Therefore, after briefly reviewing the revenue impact of the Act as a whole, this commentary will focus mainly on the income tax provisions. It will try to appraise briefly the equity and economic rationality of Congress' action, especially in terms of the charge that Congress has pushed us to, or over, the brink of bearable taxation. Revenue Impact Seen in one light, the 1951 Act is the capstone of an heroic tax effort by which Congress in less than 18 months added $15 billion (at 1951 income levels) to the annual flow of federal tax revenues- all but $1 billion of that amount representing increases in taxes on individual and corporate incomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data by Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L
    Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff 2nd Edition Information for Impact: Liberating Nonprofit Sector Data By Beth Simone Noveck and Daniel L. Goroff* 2nd Edition *The authors wish to acknowledge the invaluable research assistance of Raphael Majma. About the Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation Through convenings, leadership development initiatives, communications, and strategic partner- ships, the Aspen Institute’s Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation (PSI) seeks to maximize the impact of social-sector leaders in contributing to the good society at home and abroad. PSI’s Nonprofit Data Project works to promote accessible, accurate, and current information on the U.S. nonprofit sector in partnership with the nation’s top nonprofit data providers — the Foun- dation Center, GuideStar, Center for Civil Society Studies at Johns Hopkins University, Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy at the Urban Institute. The Nonprofit Data Project wishes to thank its supporters, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foun- dation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, and the Goldhirsh Foundation. The Program on Philanthropy and Social Innovation also hosts the Aspen Philanthropy Group, an agenda-setting body of foundation, public, and private-sector leaders at the cutting edge of change, and it spurs partnerships and collaborative action among them. Leadership-development initiatives include the American Express Foundation-Aspen Institute Fellowship for Emerging Nonprofit Lead- ers, the Aspen Philanthropy Seminar, and the Seminar for Mid-America Foundation CEOs. PSI’s policy work includes the Impact Economy Initiative, which seeks to strengthen and expand the field of impact investing.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • "Relief" Provisions in the Revenue Act of 1943
    "RELIEF" PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943 By JAMES E. FAHEY t THE Revenue Act of 1943 1 is an anomaly in the framework of income tax legislation.2 Its most obvious distinction lies in the manner of its enactment. It is the first revenue raising measure ever to be vetoed by a president and the first ever to be passed over veto. The political storm which engulfed Congress and the President over the bill's passage cen- tered in large measure over the so-called "relief" provisions found in the bill. These provisions alternately have been defended as accomplishing the correction of existing inequities in the law and assailed as providing loopholes enabling certain favored individuals and industries to avoid their equitable share in financing the war. A scrutinization of these con- troversial provisions in the light of the situations which they were de- signed to change may serve to focus the issue more clearly for the reader whose opinions are yet to be crystallized. Specifically, the President's veto message ' criticized five "relief" pro- visions in the bill as being special privilege measures. They were the provision for non-recognition of gain or loss on corporate reorganiza- tions carried on under court supervision and the concomitant "basis" provision,4 the extension of percentage depletion to certain minerals which were theretofore denied its use,' a provision making optional to taxpay- ers in the timber or logging business an accounting procedure which would enable them to treat the cutting of their timber as the sale of a capital asset,6 the extension of favored excess profits tax treatment formerly given only to producers of minerals and timber to producers of natural gas,7 and a broadening of the existing exemption of air mail carriers from excess profits taxes.8 t fember of the Kentucky Bar; Lecturer in Taxation, University of Louisville Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • Reactions of High-Income Taxpayers to Major Tax Legislation
    National Tax Journal, December 2016, 69 (4), 935–964 https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2016.4.10 REACTIONS OF HIGH-INCOME TAXPAYERS TO MAJOR TAX LEGISLATION Gerald Auten, David Splinter, and Susan Nelson This paper examines how high-income taxpayers reacted to major tax legislation that affected incentives for realizations of capital gains, the form of compensation, type of investments, and the choice of organizational form for businesses. The Tax Reform Act of 1969, the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the Omnibus Budget Reconcili- ation Act of 1993, and the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 are considered. The paper summarizes prior research and provides new evidence of short-term and longer-term responses of high-income taxpayers. The analysis uses individual and business tax return information to examine some of the most salient features of each of these laws. Examining the responses to prior reforms can inform discussion of the effects of future tax reform proposals. Keywords: tax reform, tax avoidance, income shifting JEL Codes: H24, H25, H26 I. INTRODUCTION ver the last 50 years, several landmark tax laws targeted high-income taxpayers in Oways that affected incentives for earning and realizing income. Some of these laws raised tax rates for high-income taxpayers while others reduced them. Some broadened the tax base by repealing tax expenditures or loopholes that fostered tax avoidance, while others narrowed it by creating new or more generous deductions and exclusions. Top tax rates on ordinary income changed significantly seven times over this 50-year period (Figure 1). Top tax rates on long-term capital gains changed even more often.
    [Show full text]