DOCSLIB.ORG

Era/President Foreign Policy Domestic Policy Time Period America: Pre-European -Settlement Patterns: Most Indian Tribes Had Separate Gender Roles

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Era/President Foreign Policy Domestic Policy Time Period America: Pre-European -Settlement Patterns: Most Indian Tribes Had Separate Gender Roles AP US History Review Sheet by Carrie Filipetti and Helen Yang (©2005) Era/President Foreign Policy Domestic Policy Time Period America: Pre-European -Settlement Patterns: Most Indian tribes had separate gender roles. Small, semi permanent settlements. Settled near rivers. Some societies large and complex, such as the Pueblos (irrigation), Mayas (Yucatan Contact Peninsula), and Aztecs/Incas (Central Mex./Peru): established trade, vast empires, religion, calendars, and made scientific discoveries. Iroquois: developed political confederacy, called League of the Iroquois. Defended them against attacks from Americans and Euros during 17 & 18 hundreds. Age of Exploration -Background of Exploration: Improvements in Technology: Renaissance, began using gunpowder, sailing compass, improvements in shipbuilding/mapmaking. 1450- Printing Press. European religious conflicts: Roman Catholic Church threatened by Ottoman (Islamic) Turks. Catholic victory in Spain (1492): Isabella and Ferdinand United. Defeated Moors of Granada. Protestant revolt: everyone Protestant/Catholic wanted to be first to spread ideas of God to Africa, Asia. Expanding Trade: Trade route from Venice and Constantinople blocked in 1453 (controlled by Ottoman Turks, demanded high tax). Had to find new trade route to Asia. First: a way around Africa, discovered by Prince Henry (Portugal): Opened a sea route around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope. 1498—Portuguese Vasco da Gama: first euro to reach India by Prince Henry’s route. Developing Nation-States in Spain, Portugal, France, England, Netherlands. Used them to find riches/spread religion. -Columbus: Funded by Spanish. Sailed from Canary Islands to Bahamas. Brought first interaction with Whites and Indians for long-time period. Led to Columbus Exchange: Indians gave Euros: Beans, corn, sweet potato, tomato, reg. Potato, tobacco, syphilis. Euros gave Indians: Sugar cane, bluegrass, pigs, horses, wheel, iron, guns, smallpox, measles, other diseases. -Dividing the New World: Spain fear Portugal (strong navy and active explorers); pope draw “Line of Demarcation” (1493)-divide New World into 2 sections; Spain west, Portugal east; Treaty of Tordesillas (1494)-move lien farther west -Spanish Conquistadores-bring diseases devastate local Indian pop; Vasco Nunez de Balboa-cross isthmus of Panama-first European to see Pacific, Juan Ponce de Leon-explore Florida for gold and fountain of youth claim Florida for Spain, Hernando Cortes-conquer Aztecs, Panfilio de Narvaez-disatrous expedition through Gulf Coast Region, Cabeza de Vaca-story of 7 cities of gold, Hernando de Soto-explore southern U.S. and discover Mississippi River , Francisco Vasquez de Coronado-expedition across Rio Grande-NM, AZ, TX, OK, KS, Ferdinand Magellan-voyage around world The Thirteen Colonies NEW ENGLAND COLONIAL CLAIMS MIDDLE COLONIAL CLAIMS SOUTHERN COLONIAL CLAIMS: -Plymouth -Maryland: first proprietary colony. 1632 to Lord Baltimore, -Virginia: Separatists fled England to Holland, went to America, became George Calvert. North of Potomac River. Refuge for English Englishmen influenced by victory over Spain & by Rich Hakluyt Pilgrims. Leader William Bradford (162), obtained London Catholics. Venture carried on after death by son Cecilius. More (urged US colonization as the way to greatness/spread gospel. Company charter to settle south of Hudson River. Mayflower Protestants than Catholics came. Calvert, to protect Catholics, made James I issued 2 charters: VA company of London and VA Company landed at Cape Cod in MA instead. Settled there, outside charter “An Act of Religious Toleration.” (1649)—guaranteed political of Plymouth. London—rights to between Hudson and Cape Fear jurisdiction. Signed Mayflower Compact, establishing foundation rights to Christians of all kinds. Representative assembly. Copy of rivers. Plymouth—right to colonize from Potomac to Maine. Both for orderly government. Bought out investors to gain more VA, economically and socially. (Chesapeake) were joint-stock companies: raised capital by shares of stock. autonomy. Plymouth Company (1607): tried to settle ME. Failed. Company -Mass Bay Colony -The Carolinas: folded. London Company: (1607) 3 ships, 104 men. Up James River Puritans felt Anglican Church retained too many practices left over 1663: Charles II restored to throne. Colonies to reward his loyalists. from Chesapeake Bay. Named Jamestown (after King). First from Roman Catholicism. King James I ignored them. Charles I Almost feudal government. NC—overflow from VA. SC—settled Permanent English settlement in N. America. Many settlers died of tried to persecute them in 1629. Puritans sought joint-stock by English planters from Barbados. Founded Charles Town in 1670. starvation, disease, or Indian violence. Reasons? Lack of initiative: company to be called Mass. Bay Company. Charles I granted it. Brought with them black slaves: slavery an institution from start. didn’t have to work, made same amt. of money from company Decided to stay in the colony (Charter didn’t specify anything, anyway. Wasted time looking to “get rich quick.” Low and swampy unusual). Led by John Winthrop. 1630—didn’t suffer as other New York/New Jersey: land, contaminated water, disease, bad relations with Powhatan colonies did. Government had a gov. and representative assembly 1664-Charles II wanted the Dutch colony of New Netherlands (Indian chief). 1608-1609: John Smith led. 1612: John Rolfe: “General Court.” 1642—Great Migration of Puritans. between Chesapeake and New England colonies. Gave James Duke discovered West Indies strain of tobacco could grow. Large market -Rhode Island, Connecticut, New Hampshire of York title to all Dutch lands in US if James conquered them. for it in Euro, gave VA a major cash crop. Saved colony. Indenture Roger Williams. Puritan. Asked to leave Mass. Bay: too radical. Colonel Richard Nicols captured New Amsterdam with no violence system: to end shrinking labor force. Planters paid for passage of Fled to Narragansett Bay, bought Indian Land, named it Providence and became New York. James outlawed representative assemblies. workers. Gov. Lord De La Warr, Sir Thomas Gates, Sir Thomas (1636). Nicols granted other civil and political rights, but Puritans wanted Dale imposed harsh rule as Governors. Edwin Sandys: action in Anne Hutchinson: taught contrary to Puritan doctrine. Banished Self-gov. James relented in 1680s. He granted a part of it to John company. New approach to attract settlers: promised them same because she said she superseded the Bible. Founded Portsmouth Lord Berkeley and Sir George Carteret (two Carolina proprietors). rights as in England. Founded Rep. Assembly, House of Burgesses (1638). They named it New Jersey (proprietary). Colonel Nicols didn’t in 1619: first in US. Gave private ownership of land. 1619—began 1644-Roger Williams got charter from Parliament to combine know, conflicting claims of ownership…New Jersey in 1702 taken using African servants. King James I wanted tobacco profits for Providence, Portsmouth, and others to colony of Rhode Island. over by crown, utilizing this battle over ownership. self: used high mortality and Indian massacres to take charter in Williams’ allowed religious toleration FOR ALL. Populated by the 1624. Made it a royal colony. Took away all political rights and the “unwelcome.” Pennsylvania and Delaware: representative assembly. Charles I, son, restored rights 15 years CT: Puritans who had disagreements with Mass. Colony leaders. Penn: founded as a refuge for Quakers (sprung up around English later. (Chesapeake). 1636: Thomas Hooker founded Hartford. 1639: Fundamental Order Civil War). William Penn founded it in 1681. Laid out city of of CT, first written constitution in US—established rep. gov’t. 1637 Philadelphia—grid--himself. Had peaceful relations with Indians. Georgia—constant imperial warfare. Colony intended as a buffer —John Davenport led Puritans. Founded New Haven. Winthrop not Advertised colony in Europe, offered land, representative between South Carolina and Spanish-held Florida. Philanthropists strict enough. 1662—charter combined New Haven and Hartford. assemblies, and religious freedom. Colony grew and prospered. by James Oglethorpe obtained charter for Georgia in 1732, located NH: Overflow from Mass. 1677—King Charles II chartered. Royal Fertile soil. Large exporter of grain to Europe and West Indies. between Savannah and Altamaha rivers. Populated by poor debtors. colony. Economically dependent on Massachusetts Bay Colony. Few settlers came, too many rules. 1752—failed. Delaware: Part of Penn, granted a separate legislature by Penn. Ruled by Penn’s proprietary governors until US Revolution. Establishing the Colonies Spain: France: England: 1600-1732 -rigid control of colonies to benefit Spain; bureaucracy from Madrid -Giovanni da Verrazzano (1524)-follow American coast from NC to -Earliest claims resulted from John Cabot (Italian sea captain): -treasure fleets carry riches to Spain annually Maine explored coast of Newfoundland (NFL) in 1497 -encomiendas system-large manors, Indian slaves managed by -1534-Jacques Cartier-St. Lawrence River-hoped it was Northwest -little interest in colonies for most of 1500s—occupied with Henry conquistadors—land given to Spainards; later replaced with Passage-claim area for France VII’s break with Roman Catholic Church. hacienda system -Slow to develop colonies: occupied with Euro wars and -efforts supported by private rather than gov’t funds-greater degree -bring African slaves (asiento system) after devastation of native
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Brief Description of Federal Taxes
    A BRIEF DESCRIFTION OF FEDERAL TAXES ON CORPORATIONS SINCE i86i WMUAu A. SU. ND* The cost to the federal government of financing the Civil War created a need for increased revenue, and Congress in seeking new sources tapped theretofore un- touched corporate and individual profits. The Act of July x, x862, amending the Act of August 5, x86i, is the first law under which any federal income tax was collected and is considered to be largely the basis of our present system of income taxation. The tax acts of the Civil War period contained provisions imposing graduated taxes upon the gain, profits, or income of every person2 and providing that corporate profits, whether divided or not, should be taxed to the stockholders. Certain specified corporations, such as banks, insurance companies and transportation companies, were taxed at the rate of 5%, and their stockholders were not required to include in income their pro rata share of the profits. There were several tax acts during and following the War, but a description of the Act of 1864 will serve to show the general extent of the coiporate taxes of that period. The tax or "duty" was imposed upon all persons at the rate of 5% of the amount of gains, profits and income in excess of $6oo and not in excess of $5,000, 7Y2/ of the amount in excess of $5,ooo and not in excess of -$o,ooo, and io% of the amount in excess of $Sxooo.O This tax was continued through the year x87i, but in the last two years of its existence was reduced to 2/l% upon all income.
    [Show full text]
  • Ways and Means Committee's Request for the Former President's
    (Slip Opinion) Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )(1) Section 6103(f )(1) of title 26, U.S. Code, vests the congressional tax committees with a broad right to receive tax information from the Department of the Treasury. It embod- ies a long-standing judgment of the political branches that the tax committees are uniquely suited to receive such information. The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In assessing whether requested information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose, the Executive Branch must give due weight to Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Like courts, therefore, Executive Branch officials must apply a pre- sumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legit- imate objectives. When one of the congressional tax committees requests tax information pursuant to section 6103(f )(1), and has invoked facially valid reasons for its request, the Executive Branch should conclude that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose only in exceptional circumstances. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information. Under section 6103(f )(1), Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee. July 30, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Internal Revenue Code requires the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to keep tax returns and related information confidential, 26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality Vs
    Federal Income Tax Returns--Confidentiality vs. Public Disclosure* by Boris I. Bittker* * I. INTRODUCTION This article will examine the relationship between the individual's interest in privacy, reflected in such recent statutes as the Privacy Act of 1974, I and the public's right to know, which underlies legislation like the Freedom of Information Act. 2 The subject is of intrinsic impor­ tance, but it is particularly appropriate for an article in this lecture se­ ries, since privacy3 and disclosure4 were values of special interest to Justice Douglas. Neither the individual's right to privacy5 nor the pub­ lic's right to know6 is explicitly protected by the Constitution, but both do have constitutional overtones, and both are protected by various statutory provisions. Using federal income tax returns as the centerpiece of the discus­ sion, I propose to show how privacy and disclosure can come into con­ flict-a possibility that has been insufficiently recognized by the courts and the commentators. The leading treatise on political and civil rights,7 for example, treats the two subjects in separate chapters with virtually no acknowledgement that they are related, let alone that they • Copyright 1981 by Boris I. Bittker. •• Sterling Professor of Law. Yale University. This article is the modified text of a speech delivered at the Fifth Annual William O. Douglas Lecture Series. October 30. 1980. I. Pub. L. No. 93-579, § 3, 88 Stat. 1897 (amended 1975 & 1977) codified at 5 U.S.C § 552a (1976». 2. Pub. L. No. 89-554, 80 Stat. 383 (1966) (amended 1967, 1974, 1976 & 1978) (codified at 5 U.S.C § 552 (1976».
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Register
    > 11TTTO& ' FEDERAL REGISTER VOLUME 3 \ 1934 NUMBER 141 i/AHTED^ W a sh in gton , T h u rsd a y, J u ly 21, 1938 Rules, Regulations, Orders his hand and caused the seal of the De­ CONTENTS partment of Agriculture to be affixed in the city of Washington, District of Co­ RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDERS TITLE 7—AGRICULTURE lumbia, this 19th day of July, 1938. T itle 7—A griculture: [ seal! M. L. W ilson, Agricultural Adjustment Ad­ AGRICULTURAL ADJUSTMENT Acting Secretary of Agriculture. ADMINISTRATION ministration: Page [F. R. Doc. 38-2079; Filed, July 20,1938; Fresh prunes grown in Uma­ P roclamation W ith Respect to B ase 9:32 a. m.] tilla County, Oreg., Walla P eriod to be U sed for P urpose of Walla and Columbia M arketing A greement and O rder Counties, Wash.: R egulating H andling of F resh P runes Base period for marketing G rown in U matilla County in State Order R egulating the H andling in In ­ agreement and order__1779 of Oregon, and W alla W alla and terstate and Foreign Commerce, and Order regulating handling Columbia Counties in State of W ash­ Such H andling as D irectly Burdens, in interstate, etc., com­ ington Obstructs or Affects I nterstate or F oreign Commerce of Fresh P runes merce_________________ 1779 By virtue of the authority vested in G rown in U matilla County in State Mainland cane sugar area the Secretary of Agriculture by the terms of Oregon and W alla W alla and Co­ ferais, determination of and provisions of Public Act No.
    [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]
  • Economic Mobility Behaviors Due to Earned Income Tax Credit Policy: a Case Study of a Southern California Population
    Pepperdine University Pepperdine Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 2013 Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population Eugene J. Anton Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd Recommended Citation Anton, Eugene J., "Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 415. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/415 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. i Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology ECONOMIC MOBILITY BEHAVIORS DUE TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT POLICY: A CASE STUDY OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership by Eugene J. Anton November, 2013 Kent Rhodes, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson ii This dissertation, written by Eugene J. Anton under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Doctoral Committee: Kent Rhodes, Ed.D., Chairperson Leo Mallette, Ed.D. James Dellaneve, Ed.D. iii © Copyright by Eugene J. Anton (2013) All Rights Reserved iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................
    [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]
  • The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response
    The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response Daniel Marcin∗ March 25, 2014 Abstract The elasticity of taxable income (ETI) with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate is an estimate of the aggregate response to tax rate changes. It is estimated without attributing cause to avoidance, evasion, or changes in economic growth. Historical ETI estimates in the public nance literature often rely on assumptions about income dynamics. A provision in the Revenue Act of 1924 for publicity of income tax returns allowed major newspapers to run lists of names, addresses, and tax payments in their pages. From these records, I constructed a dataset of very high income taxpayers. Over 10,000 individuals can be easily matched between the two years. In addition, the Revenue Act of 1924 sharply cut marginal tax rates. These changes can be used to estimate the ETI without distribution or rank preservation assumptions. Preliminary estimates indicate a positive ETI around 0.3 to 0.6, consistent with previous research. ∗Acknowledgements: Paul Rhode, David Albouy, Martha Bailey, and Josh Hausman for serving on my committee, seminar participants at Michigan, the Midwest Economics Association, the Economics and Busi- ness History Society, the World Cliometric Congress, and Nic Duquette for various helpful comments. Fund- ing: SRA, OTPR, Rackham, EHA, MITRE 1 I wish it to be understood that I have not the slightest prejudice against multi-millionaires. I like them. But I always feel this way when I meet one of them: You have made millionsgood; that means you have something in you. I wish you would show it.
    [Show full text]
  • Important Dates in U.S. Tax History Release 16
    Release 16 Important Dates in U.S. Tax History 1862 Abraham Lincoln enacts emergency measure to pay for Civil War: Minimum 3% tax rate. 1872 Lincoln’s income tax law lapses. 1894 2% federal income tax enacted. 1895 Income tax ruled unconstitutional by U.S. Supreme Court in Pollack v. Farmer’s Loan and Trust. 1909 16th amendment that authorizes Congress to collect taxes on income is proposed. 1913 Wyoming casts 37th vote, ratifying the 16th amendment. One in 271 people pays 1% rate. 1926 Revenue Act of 1926 reduces taxes: Too much money being collected. 1939 Revenue statutes codified. One out of 32 citizens pays 4% rate. 1943 One out of three people pays taxes. Withholding on salaries and wages introduced. 875-page Internal Revenue Code of 1954 passes. Considered the most monumental overhaul of federal income tax system to date. 3,000 changes 1954 to tax rules. 1969 Tax Reform Act: Major amendments to 1954 overhaul. 1984 Reagan Tax Reform Act: Most complex bill ever, requires over 180 technical corrections. 1986 Tax Reform Act reduces tax brackets from five or two. 1993 Clinton’s Revenue Reconciliation Act passes by one Vice Presidential vote. 1996 Four bills make over 700 changes, including Medical Savings Accounts and SIMPLE plans. 1997 Taxpayer Relief Act brings more than 800 changes. Child tax credit, Roth IRAs, capital gains reduction, breaks for higher education enacted. 2001 Tax Relief Act creates 441 changes. Lowers tax rates, repeals estate tax, increases contribution limits on 401(k)s and IRAs. The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act brings business tax relief, including a 5-year net operating loss carryback and extends and adds 2002 depreciation.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 27 (2018-2019) Issue 1 Article 5 October 2018 A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax Henry Lowenstein Kathryn Kisska-Schulze Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons Repository Citation Henry Lowenstein and Kathryn Kisska-Schulze, A Historical Examination of the Constitutionality of the Federal Estate Tax, 27 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 123 (2018), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol27/iss1/5 Copyright c 2018 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj A HISTORICAL EXAMINATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE FEDERAL ESTATE TAX Henry Lowenstein* and Kathryn Kisska-Schulze** INTRODUCTION During the 2016 presidential campaign debate, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton vowed to raise the Federal Estate Tax to sixty-five percent,1 while Republican candidate Donald Trump pledged to repeal it as part of his overall tax reform proposal.2 Following his election into the executive seat, President Trump signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) on December 22, 2017, which encompasses the most comprehensive tax law changes in the United States in decades.3 Although the law does not completely repeal the Estate Tax, it temporarily doubles the estate and gift tax exclusion amounts for estates of decedents dying and gifts made after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2026.4 Following candidate Trump’s campaign pledge to repeal the Estate Tax,5 and his subsequent signing of the TCJA into law during his first year of presidency,6 an interesting question resonating from these initiatives is whether the Estate Tax is even constitutional.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 6-1-2004 Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A. Bank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven A. Bank, Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1159 (2004), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol61/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A. Bank* Abstract This Article examines the use offederal tax provisions to effect changes in state law corporategovernance. There is a growingacademic controversy over these provisions,fueled in part by their popularityamong legislators as a method of addressing the recent spate of corporatescandals. As a case study on the use of tax to regulate corporategovernance, this paper compares and contrasts two measures enacted during the New Deal-the enactment of the undistributedprofits tax in 1936 and the overhaul of the tax-free reorganizationprovisions in 1934-and considers why theformer was so much more controversialand less sustainablethan the latter. While some of the difference can be explained by the different political and economic circumstances surrounding each proposal, this Article argues that the divergence in the degree of opposition can be explained in part by an examination of the extent to which each provision threatened an underlying norm, or longstanding standard,of corporate behavior.
    [Show full text]