DOCSLIB.ORG

How Limiting Tax Deductions for High-Income Donors Could Undermine Charitable Organizations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
How Limiting Tax Deductions for High-Income Donors Could Undermine Charitable Organizations Compromising the Safety Net: How Limiting Tax Deductions for High-Income Donors Could Undermine Charitable Organizations Patrick E. Tolan, Jr.* ABSTRACT With the election behind us, tax reform looms as the hot-button topic of the day. Based on election results, it is likely that the Obama administration will continue to push for the same types of reforms proposed in the 2013 budget. However, inadvertent consequences of the administration’s proposals, specifically those impacting charitable donations, may lead to unfortunate results in the rush to do something to break the gridlock on tax reform, especially while federal spending remains reduced or “sequestered” until the budget can be balanced. President Obama’s budget proposals have contemplated reducing the top rate for charitable deductions (and all itemized deductions) to 28%. Because America’s largest donors are those in the highest marginal tax brackets, efforts to limit deductibility of charitable donations could have a chilling effect on charitable giving. In this Article, the author looks at motivations for charitable donations and specifically at the impact of tax deductibility as a motivating factor. He takes a historical look at philanthropic surveys and econometric models and examines empirical data concerning impacts of significant changes to the tax code in the 1980s that could be used as indicators of what effect the proposed limitations on deductibility could have on donations. The author also considers impacts of the recent recession on the nonprofit sector, which has already been burdened by historically high numbers of unemployed individuals and children in poverty. Because the economic downturn has already stifled charitable giving at a time when the nonprofit sector faces high demands, any further erosion may be the straw that breaks the camel’s back. If tax changes dampen enthusiasm for * Associate Professor, Barry University School of Law. An earlier version of this Article was presented at the 2012 Southeastern Association of Law Schools’ Economic Challenges and Charitable Organizations Panel. I appreciate the many thoughtful suggestions provided during and after that presentation. In addition, I wish to thank Alyssa DiRusso, Marc Edelman, Miranda Perry Fleischer, Heather Kolinsky, and Grace Lee for their comments and suggestions regarding the ideas and arguments presented here and in earlier drafts. I also thank Mallory Pearce and Tiffany Walters for their outstanding research support. Any errors are, of course, my own. 330 SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW [Vol. XLVI:329 charitable giving even further, struggling charities may go under, and prospective new charities may not be able to get off the ground to pick up the slack. At the end of the day, government welfare programs, which are more costly than a tax subsidy for charitable donations, would be needed to meet the needs of citizens slipping through a crumbling safety net. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 331 II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 333 A. The Charitable Donation Deduction: Then and Now ................... 333 1. Inception of the Charitable Donation Deduction .................... 333 2. Present Deductibility ............................................................... 335 3. 2013 Budget Proposal and Expiring Tax Cuts ........................ 338 B. Justifications for the Deduction ..................................................... 340 1. Ideal Income Tax Excludes Charitable Donations from Income ................................................................................... 342 2. Efficient Subsidy Theory ........................................................ 345 3. Equity Theory ......................................................................... 350 4. Distributive Justice: Rawls Revisited .................................... 352 5. The Need for Salience ............................................................. 354 C. Charitable Deduction Evolution Throughout the Years ................. 356 1. Changes to Limit Deductions as a Percentage of Income ...... 357 2. Changes to the Pool of Tax-Advantaged Donors .................... 357 3. Rate Changes Throughout the Years ...................................... 358 a. Early Tax Rates: Wartime Spikes and Progressivity ........ 359 b. Major Rate-Change Reforms of the 1980s ....................... 360 c. Post-1980s Rate Changes: Increases, Relief, and Sunsets ............................................................................ 363 D. How Giving Has Changed in Response to Tax Changes ............... 363 1. The Early Years: 1913-1940 .................................................. 364 2. The 1940s and the Standard Deduction .................................. 365 3. Changes in the 1950s-1960s ................................................... 366 4. Changes in the 1970s ............................................................. 368 5. Tax Reform in the 1980s ........................................................ 372 6. The 1990s to the Present ......................................................... 375 III. DONATIONS DROP IN TIME OF SERIOUS RECESSION ................................. 376 IV. ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 379 A. The Charitable Deduction Should Not Be Reduced Now ............. 380 B. Severity of Proposed Tax Reform .................................................. 382 C. The Need for Continued Study ...................................................... 385 V. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 387 APPENDIX 1 ..................................................................................................... 388 2013] COMPROMISING THE SAFETY NET 331 “Charity is thus a blessed act that should suffer no discouragement from something so mean as the tax code.”1 I. INTRODUCTION More Americans⎯46 million⎯are presently living in poverty than at any time in the past fifty years.2 Even more disturbing, child-poverty rates have climbed to 22%, up from 16% just ten years ago.3 As demand for social services peaks, many newly unemployed or others who have never before needed social services will turn to charities, specifically their churches, for services because they do not know about public assistance or how to obtain it.4 “Superstorm Sandy” reminds us of how vulnerable people are to natural disasters as well as the critical role of nonprofit organizations in providing relief to disaster victims.5 Nevertheless, whether our hardships are from natural or economic disasters, what is most evident is the crucial need for the services of the charitable sector to help those who are suffering. Despite America’s unparalleled modern economic hardship, President Obama has proposed reducing tax relief for wealthy taxpayers who donate to charity.6 To the extent these changes could deter charitable giving, the 1. 147 CONG. REC. 2525 (2001) (statement of Rep. Philip M. Crane in support of the Charitable Giving Tax Relief Act). Congressman Crane had the support of 149 members of Congress in an earlier version of the charitable deduction reform bill he was proposing (calling for those taking standard deduction to also receive charitable donation deduction). See id. Crane’s remarks explain why many believe that charitable donations are fundamentally different than other personal donations. “Charity benefits both the giver and the receiver in like proportions. The act of giving elevates the heart of the giver. The act of receiving elevates the condition of the recipient.” Id. 2. See Marisol Bello, Poverty Affects 46 Million Americans, USA TODAY, Sept. 28, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-09-28/millions-of-Americans-are-suddenly-poor/50593610/1 (since Census Bureau began tracking poverty data in 1959). “Hispanics and blacks living in poverty remain disproportionate to their population. So do people in families headed by single women, where more than one- third live below the poverty line.” Id.; see also How America’s Losing the War on Poverty, NPR, Aug. 4, 2012, http://www.npr.org/2012/08/04/158141728/how-americas-losing-the-war-on-poverty [hereinafter War on Poverty] (noting more poverty than at any time since war on poverty in 1960s). 3. See G. Jeffrey MacDonald, The New Face of American Poverty Is Often a Child’s, USA TODAY, Oct. 13, 2011, http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/story/2011-10-13/poverty-children-church/50761118/1 (detailing child-poverty statistics). “[C]hildren are the poorest age group in our country because their families⎯typically single moms trying to make it⎯can’t do so because of this flood of low-wage work that we have.” War on Poverty, supra note 2. 4. See MacDonald, supra note 3. Robert L. Fischer, Case Western Reserve University’s codirector of the Center on Urban Poverty & Community Development, noted that “faith-based service programs tend to catch people who fall through the cracks of other safety nets.” Id. 5. See Superstorm Sandy Sparks Huge Need for Relief, HERALDNET, Nov. 10, 2012, http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20121110/NEWS02/711109956. “[T]he population density of the Northeast may require a response that surpasses Katrina in the number of people served and resources required.” Id. (citing Salvation Army Major Darryl Leedom). 6. DEP’T OF TREASURY, GENERAL EXPLANATIONS OF
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Congressional Record—House H2113
    March 19, 2003 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — HOUSE H2113 a Support Our Troops rally or a reserv- government. And one can just project, through the ceiling. So it is obvious ist center and say, ‘‘Congressman, I if we continue to spend two and three that sooner or later, and I hope sooner will take my $90,000 tax cut now, and I and sometimes four times the rate of for the sake of our children and our don’t care if veterans have to stand in inflation, then government takes over; grandchildren, that we have to bring longer lines, have shortages of beds or and instead of empowering people in our spending into line so that this can’t get into VA hospitals tomorrow.’’ the United States, instead of empow- curve does not continue to keep going We all want to engage in shared sac- ering businesses to encourage them to up and up and up and soak up more and rifice. We are at a critical time in our expand and develop and offer better more of our gross domestic product. Nation’s history. Our first obligation and more jobs, government has been at has to be to our seniors and those the feeding trough to use more of those Now, I would like to for a few mo- fighting for our freedom in Iraq and dollars by increasing taxes across the ments turn our attention to another other dangerous places in the world. country. curve, another set of curves, and these We cannot cut their beds, their budg- How do we deal with a situation curves are just some detail-building on ets; we cannot balance tax cuts on where we have made our taxes so pro- the curve that the gentleman showed their backs.
    [Show full text]
  • Econ 244: Market Failures and Public Policy
    Econ 244: Market Failures and Public Policy Liran Einav and Heidi Williams Winter 2021 Mondays and Wednesdays, 11:30 AM{1:20 PM Course overview. This course will cover selected topics in applied microeconomics, namely insurance and credit markets (aka \selection markets"), markets for innovation, and healthcare markets. The common theme (as the course name suggests) is that in all three contexts there are good a priori reasons to be concerned about potential market failures, suggesting that some type of government intervention or regulation may be critical for achieving efficient market outcomes. These three markets are also particularly useful in illustrating the connection and interplay between economic research and public policy. The focus of the course will be on topics, not methods, and will therefore cater to a broad set of students { especially those with interests in applied microeconomics, broadly defined. While, formally, this class is not attached to any of the second-year sequences, it should be particularly complementary to the second-year sequences in IO and public economics. In addition to discussing existing work and bringing students closer to the research frontier, the course will emphasize areas of inquiry where additional research is feasible and warranted, thus hopefully generating possible leads for second-year research papers. Course logistics. The class meets regularly on Mondays and Wednesdays, 11:30am{1:20pm. There is no class on January 18 (MLK Jr. Day) nor February 15 (Presidents' Day). We will be using Canvas to post material and send announcements. A tentative list of lectures is below. Starred papers on the reading list are those we expect to discuss in detail in class.
    [Show full text]
  • Taxation Paradigms: JOHN WEBB SUBMISSION APRIL 2009
    Taxation Paradigms: What is the East Anglian Perception? JOHN WEBB A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Bournemouth University for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy SUBMISSION APRIL 2009 BOURNEMOUTH UNIVERSITY What we calf t[ie beginningis oftenthe end And to makean endis to makea beginning ?fie endis wherewe start ++++++++++++++++++ Weshall not ceasefrom exploration And the of exploring end .. Wilt to arrivewhere we started +++++++++++++++++ 7.S f: Cwt(1974,208: 209) ? fie Four Quartets,Coffected Poems, 1909-1962 London: Faderand Fader 2 Acknowledgements The path of a part time PhD is long and at times painful and is only achievablewith the continued support of family, friends and colleagues. There is only one place to start and that is my immediate family; my wife, Libby, and daughter Amy, have shown incredible patienceover the last few years and deserve my earnest thanks and admiration for their fantastic support. It is far too easy to defer researchwhilst there is pressingand important targets to be met at work. My Dean of Faculty and Head of Department have shown consistent support and, in particular over the last year my workload has been managedto allow completion. Particularthanks are reservedfor the most patientand supportiveperson - my supervisor ProfessorPhilip Hardwick.I am sure I am one of many researcherswho would not have completed without Philip - thank you. ABSTRACT Ever since the Peasant'sRevolt in 1379, collection of our taxes has been unpopular. In particular when the taxes are viewed as unfair the population have reacted in significant and even violent ways. For example the Hearth Tax of 1662, Window Tax of 1747 and the Poll tax of the 1990's have experiencedpublic rejection of these levies.
    [Show full text]
  • ITEMIZING on STATE and FEDERAL TAX INCOME RETURNS: IT’S (NOW MORE) COMPLICATED David Weiner December 2, 2020
    ITEMIZING ON STATE AND FEDERAL TAX INCOME RETURNS: IT’S (NOW MORE) COMPLICATED David Weiner December 2, 2020 A taxpayer’s decision to itemize deductions or to claim the standard deduction on their income tax return is often framed as a simple calculation: Claim the greater of the two so as to minimize tax liability. But in states that require taxpayers to use the same status on their state income tax return as on their federal return, this general rule can produce conflicting results if taxpayers examine liability separately on their federal and state returns. Itemized deductions might be greater than the standard deduction on a state income tax return, but the reverse could be true on a federal return. Recent federal law changes have further complicated the choice. When the federal standard deduction was nearly doubled beginning in 2018, many more taxpayers found a conflict between the best itemization scenario on federal and state income tax returns. Those taxpayers must now calculate their federal and state income taxes under both scenarios if they want to minimize their combined state and federal income tax liability. Many taxpayers in states that link federal and state itemization choices are affected. In Maryland, for example, more than 200,000 taxpayers could benefit by itemizing on their federal returns when that may not be the obvious choice. In this brief, I examine the links between federal and state itemization decisions and explore the implications of relaxing state rules requiring that state itemization choices match federal ones. elatively few federal taxpayers itemize deductions on their income tax returns under current law, and those who do tend to have very high incomes.
    [Show full text]
  • Itep Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes: About Iii
    THE GUIDE TO Fair State and Local Taxes 2011 Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy 1616 P Street, NW, Suite 201, Washington, DC 20036 | 202-299-1066 | www.itepnet.org | [email protected] THE ITEP GUIDE TO FAIR STATE AND LOCAL TAXES: ABOUT III About the Guide The ITEP Guide to Fair State and Local Taxes is designed to provide a basic overview of the most important issues in state and local tax policy, in simple and straightforward language. The Guide is also available to read or download on ITEP’s website at www.itepnet.org. The web version of the Guide includes a series of appendices for each chapter with regularly updated state-by-state data on selected state and local tax policies. Additionally, ITEP has published a series of policy briefs that provide supplementary information to the topics discussed in the Guide. These briefs are also available on ITEP’s website. The Guide is the result of the diligent work of many ITEP staffers. Those primarily responsible for the guide are Carl Davis, Kelly Davis, Matthew Gardner, Jeff McLynch, and Meg Wiehe. The Guide also benefitted from the valuable feedback of researchers and advocates around the nation. Special thanks to Michael Mazerov at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. About ITEP Founded in 1980, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP) is a non-profit, non-partisan research organization, based in Washington, DC, that focuses on federal and state tax policy. ITEP’s mission is to inform policymakers and the public of the effects of current and proposed tax policies on tax fairness, government budgets, and sound economic policy.
    [Show full text]
  • More Than 50 Years of Trade Rule Discrimination on Taxation: How Trade with China Is Affected
    MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF TRADE RULE DISCRIMINATION ON TAXATION: HOW TRADE WITH CHINA IS AFFECTED Trade Lawyers Advisory Group Terence P. Stewart, Esq. Eric P. Salonen, Esq. Patrick J. McDonough, Esq. Stewart and Stewart August 2007 Copyright © 2007 by The Trade Lawyers Advisory Group LLC This project is funded by a grant from the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). SBA’s funding should not be construed as an endorsement of any products, opinions or services. All SBA-funded projects are extended to the public on a nondiscriminatory basis. MORE THAN 50 YEARS OF TRADE RULE DISCRIMINATION ON TAXATION: HOW TRADE WITH CHINA IS AFFECTED TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................. iv INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 1 I. U.S. EXPORTERS AND PRODUCERS ARE COMPETITIVELY DISADVANTAGED BY THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT TAXES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE .............................................. 2 II. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO THE DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT OF INDIRECT AND DIRECT TAXES IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE WITH RESPECT TO BORDER ADJUSTABILITY................................................................. 21 A. Border Adjustability of Taxes ................................................................. 21 B. 18th and 19th Century Examples of the Application of Border Tax Adjustments .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Macroeconomics Effects of a Negative Income
    The Macroeconomics e¤ects of a Negative Income Tax Martin Lopez-Daneri Department of Economics The University of Iowa February 17, 2010 Abstract I study a revenue neutral tax reform from the actual US Income Tax to a Negative Income Tax (N.I.T.) in a life-cycle economy with individual heterogeneity. I compare di¤erent transfers in a stationary equilibrium. I …nd that the optimal tax rate is 19.51% with a transfer of 11% of GDP per capita, roughly $5,172.79. The average welfare gain amounts to a 1.7% annual increase of individual consumption. All agents bene…t from the reform. There is a 17.52% increase in GDP per capita and a decrease of 13% in Capital per labor. Capital per Output declines 10.22%. 1 Introduction The actual US Income Tax has managed to become increasingly complex, because of its numerous tax credits, deductions, overlapping provisions and increasing marginal rates. The Income Tax introduces a considerable number of distortions in the economy. There have been several proposals to simplify it. However, this paper focuses on one of them: a Negative Income Tax (NIT). In this paper, I ask the following questions: What are the macroeconomic e¤ects of replacing the Income Tax with a Negative Income Tax? Speci…cally, is there any welfare gain from this Revenue-Neutral Reform? Particularly, I am considering a NIT that taxes all income at the same marginal rate and 1 makes a lump-sum transfer to all households. Not only does the tax proposed is simple but also all households have a minimum income assured.
    [Show full text]
  • Estimating Welfare in Insurance Markets Using Variation in Prices∗
    THE QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS Vol. CXXV August 2010 Issue 3 ESTIMATING WELFARE IN INSURANCE MARKETS USING VARIATION IN PRICES∗ LIRAN EINAV AMY FINKELSTEIN MARK R. CULLEN We provide a graphical illustration of how standard consumer and producer theory can be used to quantify the welfare loss associated with inefficient pricing in insurance markets with selection. We then show how this welfare loss can be estimated empirically using identifying variation in the price of insurance. Such variation, together with quantity data, allows us to estimate the demand for insurance. The same variation, together with cost data, allows us to estimate how insurers’ costs vary as market participants endogenously respond to price. The slope of this estimated cost curve provides a direct test for both the existence and the nature of selection, and the combination of demand and cost curves can be used to estimate welfare. We illustrate our approach by applying it to data on employer- provided health insurance from one specific company. We detect adverse selection but estimate that the quantitative welfare implications associated with inefficient pricing in our particular application are small, in both absolute and relative terms. ∗We are grateful to Felicia Bayer, Brenda Barlek, Chance Cassidy, Fran Filpovits, Frank Patrick, and Mike Williams for innumerable conversations ex- plaining the institutional environment of Alcoa, to Colleen Barry, Susan Busch, Linda Cantley, Deron Galusha, James Hill, Sally Vegso, and especially Marty Slade for providing and explaining the data, to Tatyana Deryugina, Sean Klein, Dan Sacks, and James Wang for outstanding research assistance, and to Larry Katz (the Editor), three anonymous referees, Kate Bundorf, Raj Chetty, Peter Dia- mond, Hanming Fang, David Laibson, Jonathan Levin, Erzo Luttmer, Jim Poterba, Dan Silverman, Jonathan Skinner, and numerous seminar participants for help- ful comments.
    [Show full text]
  • Section 111.—Recovery of Tax Benefit Items 26 CFR 1.111-1
    Section 111.—Recovery of Tax Benefit Items 26 CFR 1.111-1: Recovery of certain items previously deducted or credited. (Also: § 164; 1.164-1.) Rev. Rul. 2019-11 ISSUE If a taxpayer received a tax benefit from deducting state and local taxes under section 164 of the Internal Revenue Code in a prior taxable year, and the taxpayer recovers all or a portion of those taxes in the current taxable year, what portion of the recovery must the taxpayer include in gross income? FACTS In Situations 1 through 4 below, the taxpayers are unmarried individuals whose filing status is “single” and who itemized deductions on their federal income tax returns for 2018 in lieu of using their standard deduction of $12,000. The taxpayers did not pay or accrue the taxes in carrying on a trade or business or an activity described in section 212. For 2018, the taxpayers were not subject to alternative minimum tax under section 55 and were not entitled to any credit against income tax. The taxpayers use the cash receipts and disbursements method of accounting. Situation 1: Taxpayer A paid local real property taxes of $4,000 and state income taxes of $5,000 in 2018. A’s state and local tax deduction was not limited by section 164(b)(6) because it was below $10,000. Including other allowable itemized deductions, A claimed a total of $14,000 in itemized deductions on A’s 2018 federal income tax return. In 2019, A received a $1,500 state income tax refund due to A’s overpayment of state income taxes in 2018.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 M1SA, Minnesota Itemized Deductions
    *191161* 2019 Schedule M1SA, Minnesota Itemized Deductions Your First Name and Initial Last Name Your Social Security Number Medical and Dental Expenses 1 Medical and dental expenses (see instructions) . 1 2 Enter the amount from line 1 of Form M1 . If zero or less, enter 0 . 2 3 Multiply line 2 by 10% (.10). 3 4 Subtract line 3 from line 1. If line 3 is more than line 1, enter 0 . 4 Taxes You Paid 5 Real estate taxes (see instructions) . 5 6 Personal property taxes (see instructions) . 6 7 Add lines 5 and 6 . 7 8 Enter the lesser of line 7 or $10,000 ($5,000 if married filing separate) 8 9 Other taxes. List the type and amount . 9 10 Add lines 8 and 9 . 10 Interest You Paid 11 Home mortgage interest and points on federal Form 1098 . 11 12 Home mortgage interest and points not reported to you on Form 1098 (see instructions) 12 13 Investment interest expense . 13 14 Add lines 11 through 13 . 14 Charitable Contributions 15 Charitable contributions by cash or check (see instructions) . 15 16 Charitable contributions by other than cash or check (see instructions) 16 17 Carryover of charitable contributions from a prior year . 17 18 Add lines 15 through 17 . 18 Casualty and Theft Losses 19 Casualty or theft loss (enclose Schedule M1CAT) . 19 Unreimbursed Employee Business Expenses 20 Unreimbursed employee expenses (enclose Schedule M1UE) . 20 21 Enter the amount from line 1 of Form M1 . If zero or less, enter 0 . 21 22 Multiply line 21 by 2% (.02) .
    [Show full text]
  • A Dozen MIT Faculty and Alumni Who Are Shaping the Future of Economics
    24/9/2014 MIT Spectrum | Continuum | A Dozen MIT Faculty and Alumni Who Are Shaping the Future of Economics A DOZEN MIT FACULTY AND ALUMNI WHO ARE SHAPING THE FUTURE OF ECONOMICS September 23rd, 2014 MIT Sloan professor Kristin Forbes PhD ’98 is one of three economists on the IMF’s “Generation Next” list to be both MIT alumnus and faculty member. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has populated nearly half its “Generation Next” list—which celebrates 25 economists under the age of 45—with MIT faculty and alumni. In some cases, the featured economists are both: Esther Duflo PhD ’99, Amy Finkelstein PhD ’01, and Kristin Forbes PhD ’98 all hold endowed chairs in MIT’s Department of Economics. The 12 scholars listed below study poverty and health care, education and real estate, crime and taxes. What they have in common is that the international finance community deems them “economists to keep an eye on” for the way they are shaping global thought—and that they’ve spent time honing their ideas on MIT’s campus. Melissa Dell PhD ’12, a Harvard assistant professor who at age 31 ties as the youngest on the IMF’s list, has studied how government crackdowns on drug violence can influence economic outcomes. Her most recent publication, whose coauthors include MIT’s Benjamin Olken, looks at the economic effects of climate. Esther Duflo PhD ’99 is MIT’s Abdul Latif Jameel Professor of Poverty Alleviation and Development Economics, and a founder and director of the Abdul Latif Jameel Poverty Action Lab (J-PAL).
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Charitable Deduction and Proposed Reforms 5
    Making the World Safe for Philanthropy The Wartime Origins and Peacetime Development of the Tax Deduction for Charitable Giving Joseph J. Thorndike April 2013 DRAFT Copyright © April 2013. The Urban Institute. Permission is granted for reproduction of this file, with attribution to the Urban Institute. This publication is part of the Urban Institute’s Tax Policy and Charities project. The purpose of this project is to analyze the many interactions between the tax system and the charitable sector, with special emphasis on the ongoing fiscal debates at both the federal and state levels. For further information and related publications, see our web site at http://www.urban.org/taxandcharities. The Tax Policy and Charities project is funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Wasie Foundation, the Rasmuson Foundation, and other donors through June 2014. The findings and conclusions contained in the publications posted here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of either foundation. The Urban Institute is a nonprofit, nonpartisan policy research and educational organization that examines the social, economic, and governance problems facing the nation. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders. DRAFT Contents 1917 6 1944 9 1981–86 12 Conclusion 17 Notes 19 DRAFT Making the World Safe for Philanthropy As Washington wrestles with its long-term fiscal problems—and its near-term political gridlock—the tax deduction for charitable giving has been getting some special attention.1 As one of the nation’s most costly tax expenditures—and its third most expensive itemized deduction—the deduction is an obvious target for reform.2 Add to this its less-than-progressive incidence, and you open the door to meaningful change.3 Or maybe you don’t.
    [Show full text]