DOCSLIB.ORG

Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: the Year 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: the Year 2013 University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository UF Law Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 2014 Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: The Year 2013 Martin J. McMahon Jr. University of Florida Levin College of Law, [email protected] Ira B. Shepard Daniel L. Simmons Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/facultypub Part of the Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Martin J. McMahon, Ira B. Shepard, & Daniel L. Simmons, Recent Developments in Federal Income Taxation: The Year 2013 15 Fla. Tax Rev. 233 (2014), available at http://scholarship.law.ufl.edu/ facultypub/542 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at UF Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in UF Law Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of UF Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. +(,121/,1( Citation: 15 Fla. Tax Rev. 233 2013-2014 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Thu Dec 4 13:43:44 2014 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=1066-3487 FLORIDA TAX REVIEW Volume 15 2014 Number 5 RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN FEDERAL INCOME TAXATION: THE YEAR 2013 "Recent developments are just like ancient history, except they happened less long ago." Martin J McMahon, Jr.! Ira B. Shepara" DanielL. Simmons*** This recent developments outline discusses, and provides context to understand the sigificance of the most importantjudicial decisions and administrative rulings and regulations promulgated by the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department during the most recent twelve months - and sometimes a little farther back in time if we find the item particularly humorous or outrageous. Most Treasury Regulations, however, are so complex that they cannot be discussed in detail and, anyway, only a devout masochist would read them all the way through; just the basic topic and fundamental principles are highlighted - unless one of us decides to go nuts and spend several pages writing one up. This is the reason that the outline is getting to be as long as it is. Amendments to the Internal Revenue Code generally are not discussed except to the extent that (1) they are of major significance, (2) they have led to administrative rulings and regulations, (3) they have affected previously issued rulings and regulations otherwise covered by the outline, or (4) they provide Dan and Marty the opportunity to mock our elected representatives; again, sometimes at least one of us goes nuts and writes up the most trivial of legislative changes. The outline focuses primarily on topics of broad general interest (to us, at least) - income tax accounting rules, determination of gross income, allowable deductions, treatment of capital gains and losses, corporate and partnership taxation, exempt organizations,and procedure andpenalties. It deals summarily with qualifiedpension and profit sharingplans, and generally does not deal with international taxation or specialized industries, such as banking, insurance, andfinancial services. Please read this outline at your own risk; we take no responsibilityfor any misinformation in it, whether occasioned by our advancing ages or our increasing indifference as to whether we get any particularitem right. Any mistakes in this outline are Marty's responsibility;any politicalbias or offensive language is Ira's;and Dan is just irresponsible. Bruce A. McGovern, Vice President,Associate Dean, and Professor of Law, South Texas College of Law, contributed to this article. Bruce's contribution is (relative)youth. * James J. Freeland Eminent Scholar in Taxation and Professor of Law, University of Florida Fredric G. Levin College of Law. Professor Emeritus, University of Houston Law Center. Professor of Law Emeritus, University of California Davis School of Law. 233 234 FloridaTax Review [Vol. 15:5 I. ACCOUNTING.......................... .......... 236 A. Accounting Methods .................... ..... 236 B. Inventories ................................ 236 C. Installment Method .......................... 236 D. Year of Inclusion or Deduction ............. ..... 236 II. BUSINESS INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS ....................... 238 A. Income .............................. ..... 238 B. Deductible Expenses versus Capitalization..... ..... 243 C. Reasonable Compensation ............. ........ 257 D. Miscellaneous Deductions............... ....... 261 E. Depreciation & Amortization .............. ..... 267 F. Credits ................................... 274 G. Natural Resources Deductions & Credits ..... ....... 276 H. Loss Transactions, Bad Debts, and NOLs ...... ...... 276 I. At-Risk and Passive Activity Losses........ ............. 279 III. INVESTMENT GAIN AND INCOME ................ ........... 283 A. Gains and Losses ................... ......... 283 B. Interest, Dividends, and Other Current Income ................ 286 C. Profit-Seeking Individual Deductions ..................... 286 D. Section 121 .............................. 286 E. Section 1031...............................286 F. Section 1033...............................289 G. Section 1035..................... .......... 290 H. Miscellaneous..............................290 IV. COMPENSATION ISSUES. ............................ 290 A. Fringe Benefits.............................290 B. Qualified Deferred Compensation Plans..... ........ 293 C. Nonqualified Deferred Compensation, Section 83, 293and Stock Options ......................... 294 D. Individual Retirement Accounts .... ................... 297 V. PERSONAL INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS ....................... 300 A. Rates. .................................... 300 B. Miscellaneous Income........................311 C. Hobby Losses and § 280A Home Office and Vacation Homes .....................................316 D. Deductions and Credits for Personal Expenses.................319 E. Divorce Tax Issues ...................... ..... 322 F. Education.. ................................. 323 G. Alternative Minimum Tax............... ....... 323 VI. CORPORATIONS...........................................323 A. Entity and Formation.........................323 B. Distributions and Redemptions ............. ..... 326 C. Liquidations. ............................... 327 D. S Corporations................. ................... 327 2014] Recent Developments in FederalIncome Taxation 235 E. Mergers, Acquisitions and Reorganizations......................331 F. Corporate Divisions. .......................... 332 G. Affiliated Corporations and Consolidated Returns...........332 H. Miscellaneous Corporate Issues....................338 VII. PARTNERSHIPS ........................................... 339 A. Formation and Taxable Years.............. ..... 339 B. Allocations of Distributive Share, Partnership Debt, and Outside Basis...............................347 C. Distributions and Transactions Between the Partnership and Partners........... ................ 350 D. Sales of Partnership Interests, Liquidations and Mergers ............................ ...... 355 E. Inside Basis Adjustments .............. ........ 356 F. Partnership Audit Rules ................ ............. 357 G. Miscellaneous..............................363 VIII. TAX SHELTERS .............................................. 365 A. Tax Shelter Cases and Rulings ........... ........ 365 B. Identified "tax avoidance transactions"...... ....... 376 C. Disclosure and Settlement ............ .............. 376 D. Tax Shelter Penalties, etc.............. ........ 376 IX. EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS AND CHARTIABLE GIVING...............382 A. Exempt Organizations ................................382 B. Charitable Giving ...................... ..... 391 X. TAX PROCEDURE. ............................. ............ 403 A. Interest, Penalties, and Prosecutions .......... ......... 403 B. Discovery: Summonses and FOIA .......... ......... 411 C. Litigation Costs........................415 D. Statutory Notice of Deficiency ........... ........... 415 E. Statute of Limitations ............................. 417 F. Liens and Collections. ......................... 421 G. Innocent Spouse ................. .............. 426 H. Miscellaneous ..................... .............. 431 XI. WITHHOLDING AND EXCISE TAXES...........................434 A. Employment Taxes ................ ............ 434 B. Self-employment Taxes............ .............. 440 C. Excise Taxes..................... .......... 440 XII. TAX LEGISLATION ....................................... 441 A. Enacted ..................................... 441 236 FloridaTax Review [Vol. 15:5 I. ACCOUNTING A. Accounting Methods 1. Yes, but when is the income recognized when, as often happens, the customer never redeems the gift card? Rev. Proc. 2013-29, 2013-33 I.R.B. 141 (7/24/13). This revenue procedure allows a taxpayer to defer recognizing in gross income certain advance payments received from the sale of gift cards that are redeemable for goods or services by an unrelated entity. Where a gift card is redeemable by an entity whose financial
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Spokane County GOP Recommends That Citizens Vote Rejected on R-88 Which Also Means You Are Voting to Reject I-1000
    10/10/19 Referendum Measure No. 88 The legislature passed Initiative Measure No. 1000 concerning affirmative action and remedying discrimination, and voters have filed a sufficient referendum petition on this act. Initiative I000 would allow the state to remedy discrimination On the November ballot for certain groups and to implement affirmative action, without there will be several state the use of quotas or preferential treatment (as defined), in public and local ballot measures education, employment, and contracting. along with twelve state advisory measures. When Should Initiative 1000 be ballots drop our Spokane [ ] Approved County GOP website, [ X ] Rejected www.spokanegop.com, will have information on all of these. One of the most important measures and one that seems most confusing is R-88 which is associated with Initiative 1000 (I-1000). The Spokane County GOP recommends that citizens vote Rejected on R-88 which also means you are voting to reject I-1000. Why REJECT R-88/I-1000? In spite of what proponents say, I-1000 will legalize discrimination and repeal the current existing law (I-200) that treats all people equally. I-1000 is discriminatory as it will provide preference to certain groups, but not others, because of characteristics such as race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public education, public employment and public contracting as long as this one discriminating characteristic is not the sole reason for affirmative action/preferential treatment. No longer will the state have to adhere to the principle of equality for everyone approved by voters in 1998 as I-200. Under I-1000 the State will be empowered to discriminate against any group it decides is underrepresented and allow lesser qualified candidates to fill positions being considered.
    [Show full text]
  • DECODING CONNERLY: Ward Connerly Research Fact Sheet
    DECODING CONNERLY: Ward Connerly Research Fact Sheet Ward Connerly is an African-American Republican based in California who for years has toured the country proposing, and often successfully enacting, anti-equal opportunity ballot initiatives in numerous states. Connerly claims he wants to live in a color-blind society, yet welcomes the support of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan, saying “If the Ku Klux Klan thinks that equality is right, God bless them. Thank them for finally reaching the point where logic and reason are being applied instead of hate.”1 Connerly’s campaigns deceptively employ civil rights language. He calls his proposals “civil rights” initiatives, when they are the opposite. He invokes the language and metaphors of the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. to persuade people to sign onto his anti-equal opportunity initiatives.2 Connerly goes to extremes. In 2003 he tried to do away with California’s collection of health data and other statistics essential to monitoring racial disparities. His proposition, the Racial Privacy Initiative,3 failed. Of the $1.7 million in donations for that campaign, $1.4 million came from six right-wing, extremist donors.4 Connerly breaks the law. The California Racial Privacy Initiative was funded through the American Civil Rights Coalition (ACRC), a Connerly-run nonprofit organization. The state of California sued and fined ACRC for violating campaign finance laws. Connerly admitted violating the law and paid a hefty fine. He later tried to skirt financial disclosure rules again, in Michigan in 2006.5 Connerly engages in fraud and unethical tactics. Connerly has a history of lying and using deceitful tactics to obtain the required signatures for his anti-equal opportunity petitions.
    [Show full text]
  • The Portland Spectator, February 2003
    Portland State University PDXScholar University Archives: Campus Publications & Portland Spectator Productions 2-15-2003 The Portland Spectator, February 2003 Portland State University. Student Publications Board Follow this and additional works at: https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/spectator Let us know how access to this document benefits ou.y Recommended Citation Portland State University. Student Publications Board, "The Portland Spectator, February 2003" (2003). Portland Spectator. 2. https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/spectator/2 This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in Portland Spectator by an authorized administrator of PDXScholar. Please contact us if we can make this document more accessible: [email protected]. THE AGE OF WHITE GUILT • FOCUS ON DIVERSITY • SEX & THE CITY The Portland Spectator FEBRUARY 2003 Why Greed is Good FEBRUARY 2003 MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Portland Spectator is to provide the students, faculty, and staff with the alternative viewpoint to the left-wing mentality forced upon all at Portland State University. The Portland Spectator is concerned with the defense LIFE LIBERTY PROPERTY and advancement of the ideals under which our great Republic was founded. Our viewpoint originates from the following principles: Editor-in-Chief Individual Liberty Napoleon Linardatos Limited Government Managing Editor Free Market Economy and Free Trade Joey Coon The Rule of Law Senior Editor Shahriyar Smith The Portland Spectator is published by the Portland State University Copy Editor Publication Board; and is staffed solely by volunteer editors and writers. The Mary McShane Portland Spectator is funded through incidental student fees, advertisement rev- enue, and private donations.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Affirmative Action Remains Essential in the Age of Obama Reginald T
    Campbell Law Review Volume 31 Article 4 Issue 3 Spring 2009 January 2009 Why Affirmative Action Remains Essential in the Age of Obama Reginald T. Shuford Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/clr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons Recommended Citation Reginald T. Shuford, Why Affirmative Action Remains Essential in the Age of Obama, 31 Campbell L. Rev. 503 (2009). This Speech is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Campbell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Repository @ Campbell University School of Law. Shuford: Why Affirmative Action Remains Essential in the Age of Obama Why Affirmative Action Remains Essential in the Age of Obama REGINALD T. SHUFORD* INTRODUCTION With the election of Barack Obama to the most powerful position in the world, the presidency of the United States of America, many opined that America finally conquered her racial demons,' some trumpeting the term "post-racial" as though it were a fait accompli.2 That an African-American man-much less one with such a nontradi- tional name3-could ascend to the highest office in the land, they * Senior Staff Attorney, Racial Justice Program, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation. I would like to thank my colleagues at the ACLU, especially those in the Racial Justice Program, for their support and wisdom, and the inspiration they provide by their unflinching commitment to ensuring that Americans in every context experience the complete measure of what it means to be fully included in society.
    [Show full text]
  • The Negative Impact of the Diversity Rationale on White Identity Formation, 89 N.Y.U
    University of Miami Law School University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository Articles Faculty and Deans 2014 White Like Me: The egN ative Impact of the Diversity Rationale on White Identity Formation Osamudia R. James University of Miami, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.law.miami.edu/fac_articles Part of the Education Law Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the Law and Society Commons Recommended Citation Osamudia R. James, White Like Me: The Negative Impact of the Diversity Rationale on White Identity Formation, 89 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 425 (2014). This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty and Deans at University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by an authorized administrator of University of Miami School of Law Institutional Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW VOLUME 89 MAY 2014 NUMBER 2 ARTICLES WHITE LIKE ME: THE NEGATIVE IMPACT OF THE DIVERSITY RATIONALE ON WHITE IDENTITY FORMATION OSAMUDIA R. JAMES* In several cases addressing the constitutionality of affirmative action admissions policies, the Supreme Court has recognized a compelling state interest in schools with diverse student populations. According to the Court and affirmative action proponents, the pursuit of diversity does not only benefit minority students who gain expanded access to elite institutions through affirmative action. Rather, diver- sity also benefits white students who grow through encounters with minority stu- dents, it contributes to social and intellectual life on campus, and it serves society at large by aiding the development of citizens equipped for employment and citizen- ship in an increasingly diverse country.
    [Show full text]
  • Color- Blind Constitutionalism, and Postracial Rhetoric †
    The Associated Dangers of “Brilliant Disguises,” Color- Blind Constitutionalism, and Postracial Rhetoric † andré douglas pond cummings * INTRODUCTION Affirmative action, since its inception in 1961, has been under siege. The backlash against affirmative action began in earnest almost immediately following its origination through President John F. Kennedy’s and President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Executive Orders. 1 Organized hostility in opposition to affirmative action crystallized early with “color-blind” theories posited and adopted, 2 “reverse discrimination” alleged and embraced, 3 and constitutional narrowing through adoption of white-privileged justifications. 4 Enmity against affirmative action continues unabated today as exemplified by recent academic writings and studies purporting to prove that affirmative action positively injures African Americans 5 and recent state-wide campaigns seeking to eradicate affirmative action through state constitutional amendments. 6 Further, a more subtle affront to affirmative action has emerged recently as dozens of commentators and millions of Americans now argue that, with the election of Barack Obama as president, the United States has officially entered a postracial era. 7 Postracialism, in averring that the election of an African American president formally † Copyright © 2010 andré douglas pond cummings. * Visiting Professor of Law, University of Iowa College of Law. Professor of Law, West Virginia University College of Law. J.D., Howard University School of Law. I am grateful to Professor Anne Lofaso, West Virginia University College of Law, for reading early stage drafts of this piece. Of course, as usual, the politics and errata of this Commentary belong exclusively to me. 1. President Kennedy issued Executive Order 10,925, “Establishing the President’s Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity.” Exec.
    [Show full text]
  • Affirmative Action, Comparable Worth, and the Women's Movement
    TOWARD GENDER EQUALITY: AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, COMPARABLE WORTH, AND THE WOMEN'S MOVEMENT SACHA E. DE LANGE* INTRODUCTION Affirmative action 1 seems to have become the most recognized strategy for integrating the sexes in the workplace. In fact, according to some scholars and activists, women are "widely assumed... [to] have been the primary benefi- ciaries of affirmative action in employment." 2 However, a study of the evidence indicates that "the actual results of affirmative action [for women] belie the rhe- toric." 3 Moreover, the assumption that affirmative action was a major part of modem anti-discrimination policy and that women could not be without it is not clearly reflected in feminist practice. In addition to affirmative action, the wo- men's movement has focused on a wide range of issues pertaining to employ- ment rights, including the concept of comparable worth, or "equal pay for work of equivalent value." 4 This concept addressed the disparity in wages through a system of job evaluations that would require employers to pay female employees in female-dominated jobs the same salaries as males in male-dominated jobs of comparable value, and was used as part of a strategy aimed at broadening the feminist base by taking on the problem of the gender-based wage gap. This Law Clerk to the Honorable Janet C. Hall, United States District Court for the District of Connecticut. J.D., New York University School of Law, 2006; M.A. (History), Leiden University (the Netherlands), 2001; B.A., Swarthmore College, 1998. The author would like to thank Profes- sor Deborah Malamud, Professor Paulette Caldwell, and the editors of the New York University Review of Law & Social Change.
    [Show full text]
  • BLACK NEOCONSERVATISM in the POST-CIVIL RIGHTS ERA a Thesis
    INCITING THE COUNTER-REVOLUTION: BLACK NEOCONSERVATISM IN THE POST-CIVIL RIGHTS ERA A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Cornell University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Professional Studies by La TaSha Beatrice Levy January 2007 ©2007 La TaSha Beatrice Levy ABSTRACT Black neoconservatism is one of the most contested political ideologies of the Post-Civil Rights era. As a challenge to mainstream Black political thought, Black neoconservatism enjoys a particular celebrity as the “bold new voice” in American racial discourse. This thesis critically analyzes Black neoconservative ideology as a counter-discourse: a direct opposition to the liberalism of the 1960s and the legacy of the Civil Rights and Black Power eras. The emergence of Black neoconservatives as a significant collective in the Post-Civil Rights era correlates with the rise of the New Right in American politics since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980. The New Right has forcefully disputed the philosophy and strategy of civil rights legislation and the traditional quest for racial equality and justice. Black neoconservatives play an increasingly significant ideological role in conservative politics and public debate in the Post-Civil Rights period. Furthermore, their racial identity lends credence to the New Right’s attack on social policy that disproportionately benefits Black people in general and the Black poor particularly. Black neoconservatives dissent from the prevailing convention that racism and White supremacy have become subtle, but nevertheless remain formidable. They insist that civil rights legislation, government intervention and liberal programs have created a pathological dependency among African Americans.
    [Show full text]
  • Protect Fairness and Equality in November, Voters Will Decide the Future of Affirmative Action
    Protect Fairness and Equality In November, voters will decide the future of affirmative action. In the United States, access to the American Dream is often framed as a race in which the swiftest runners win. Critics of affirmative action say that such policies give some runners an unfair head start in an otherwise fair race. At the same time, many supporters of affirmative action say we need these policies to assist “disabled” runners. In their focus on the runners rather than the track, both of these perspectives miss the point. Affirmative action isn’t about advancing “disabled” runners, but about repairing damaged lanes and removing the barriers that block the pathways to opportunity that only some runners face. Policies that promote inclu- sion, such as affirmative action, are designed to equalize the conditions of an otherwise unfair race and give everyone a fair chance to compete. As long as such inequalities exist, treating everyone fairly does not mean that we should treat everyone the same. Instead, we must support and defend policies that remove the numerous barriers that obstruct the lanes of women, Latinos, Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans and others disadvantaged by their racial, gender and class backgrounds. DON’T BELIEVE THE HYPE! COMMON MYTHS ABOUT AFFIRMATIVE ACTION MYTH 1: Affirmative Action is preferen- tial treatment. FACT: Affirmative action creates a fair competition by removing the barriers that obstruct the lanes of women and minorities in the race toward the American Dream. For example, because female business owners remain outside traditional old boy networks, they often receive only a fraction of the public contracting dol- Give everyone a fair chance to compete.
    [Show full text]
  • UWM Libraries Digital Collections
    Innovations More letters \%w in giving to the editor * PAGE 6 • PAGES 19-21 I Anti-violence rally Panther women beat Air Force 65-53 held in memory Read more in Sports on page 16 of student A close friend of Munz, Students, Megan Mahoney, spoke from community say the heart about losing him to violence. 'Enough is enough' "What happened to him was so unfair," Mahoney -said. "He By Kevin Lessmiller happened to be in the wrong Staff Writer place at the wrong time." Mahoney spoke of her re­ The University of Wiscon­ lationship with Munz and sin-Milwaukee Minority Media thanked everyone in the audi­ Association (MMA) sponsored ence for supporting the fight an anti-gun violence rally and against gun violence. open mike memorial trib­ ute with the theme "Enough Is Enough" in memory of Joe "Joe would be so Muiiz on Tuesday, Dec. 5. proud to see his Munz, a UWM junior, was shot and killed Oct. 10 while friends here tonight delivering sandwiches for standing up for what Jimmy John's. The event featured perfor­ is right." mances by local musicians, - Megan Mahoney emotional words by two of Munz's close friends, a speech by Bickham Project founder "Joe would be so proud to Kirk Bickham and the chance see his friends here tonight for anyone in attendance to standing up for what is right," say something about Munz or she said. gun-related violence. Bickham also gave an in­ MMA President Maria Childs spiring speech about his emphasized the importance of personal mission to make a educating people about vio­ difference in Milwaukee's vio­ lence in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Supreme Court of the United States Ë BILL SCHUETTE, Michigan Attorney General, Petitioner, V
    No. 12-682 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë BILL SCHUETTE, Michigan Attorney General, Petitioner, v. COALITION TO DEFEND AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, INTEGRATION AND IMMIGRANT RIGHTS AND FIGHT FOR EQUALITY BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY (BAMN), et al., Respondents. Ë On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Ë BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, AMERICAN CIVIL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, WARD CONNERLY, AND CENTER FOR EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER Ë MERIEM L. HUBBARD RALPH W. KASARDA* JOSHUA P. THOMPSON *Counsel of Record Pacific Legal Foundation 930 G Street Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 419-7111 Facsimile: (916) 419-7747 E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation, American Civil Rights Foundation, Ward Connerly, and Center for Equal Opportunity i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page QUESTION PRESENTED.................... i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES.................. iv INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...............1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT........................4 REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION ....6 I. THE SIXTH CIRCUIT’S DECISION CONFLICTS WITH DECISIONS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT AND OF TWO STATE SUPREME COURTS ON AN IMPORTANT MATTER OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW ....6 A. In Coalition for Economic Equity v. Wilson, the Ninth Circuit Upheld a California Voter Initiative Practically Identical to the Michigan Initiative Invalidated by the Sixth Circuit ........6 B. In 2012, the Ninth Circuit Rejected Another Political Restructuring Challenge to Proposition 209 in Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action v.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School
    College of William & Mary Law School William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository Supreme Court Preview Conferences, Events, and Lectures 2013 Section 3: Civil Rights Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School Repository Citation Institute of Bill of Rights Law at the William & Mary Law School, "Section 3: Civil Rights" (2013). Supreme Court Preview. 125. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview/125 Copyright c 2013 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/preview III. Civil Rights In This Section: New Case: 12-682 Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action p. 95 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 95 “SUPREME COURT TAKES NEW CASE ON AFFIRMATIVE ACTION, FROM p.120 MICHIGAN” Adam Liptak “AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN TEXAS AND MICHIGAN” p. 122 Stephen Wermiel “U.S. COURT TAKES SMALL STEP TO BRIDGE IDEOLOGICAL DIVIDE” p. 125 Joan Biskupic “6TH CIRCUIT: PROPOSAL 2 UNCONSTITUTIONAL” p. 127 Rayza Goldsmith “SUPREME COURT IS URGED TO REJECT MICHIGAN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION p. 129 BAN” David Savage “WHAT’S YOUR HURRY” p. 131 Linda Greenhouse New Case: 12-872 Madigan v. Levin p. 134 Synopsis and Questions Presented p. 134 “U.S. SUPREME COURT TO CONSIDER APPLICATION OF ADEA TO STATE AND p. 147 LOCAL WORKERS” Jennifer Cerven “SUPREME COURT TO TAKE ON AGE DISCRIMINATION: MADIGAN V. LEVIN” p. 149 Donald Scarinci “HARVEY LEVIN V. LISA MADIGAN, SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS p. 151 DECISION” Edward Theobald “HIGH COURT TO MULL CIRCUIT SPLIT ON GOV’T WORKER ADEA CLAIMS” p.
    [Show full text]