DOCSLIB.ORG

Robinson 1. 1862: Homestead Act = Gave 160 Acres of Land to Anyone

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Robinson 1. 1862: Homestead Act = Gave 160 Acres of Land to Anyone Acts Review US History/ Robinson 1. 1862: Homestead Act = Gave 160 acres of land to anyone who paid a small registration fee and lived on this land as a homestead for 5 years. 2. 1878: Bland-Allison Act = Silver Coinage Act of United States Congress requiring the U.S. Treasury to buy a certain amount of silver and put it into circulation as silver dollars 3. 1882: Chinese Exclusion Act, prohibited all immigration from China 4. 1883: Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, a federal law established in 1883 said government jobs should be awarded on the basis of merit (exams) instead of political affiliation. (ends spoils system) 5. 1887: Interstate Commerce Act, federal law to regulate the railroad industry, monopolistic practices. Act required that railroad rates be "reasonable and just," but did not empower the government to fix specific rates. THE INTERSTATE COMMERCE ACT WAS THE FIRST IMPORTANT ATTEMPT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REGULATE TRANSPORTATION AD MARKED A TURNING POINT IN THE HISTORY OF THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND BUSINESS. 6. 1887: Indian General Allotment Act ("Dawes Act"), Broke up Reservations to encourage Native Americans to be farmers. Called for assimilation of Native Americans into white culture. Provided that each male head of an Indian family could claim 160 acres of land as his own which they could not sell or lease. 7. 1890: Sherman Antitrust Act, 1890, first measure passed by the U.S. Congress to prohibit trusts; it was named for Senator John Sherman. 1890 8. 1890: Morrill Land-Grant Colleges Act =1862 Gave each state 30,000 acres of land to sell-income from the land was to be used to establish a college majoring in agriculture and mechanical arts (Land Grant Colleges) 9. 1890: McKinley Tariff, Passed 1890 raised tariffs, and the duty free status of Hawaiian sugar. 10. 1898: Teller Amendment = the U.S. could not annex Cuba but leave "control of the island to its people." 11. 1901: Platt Amendment = it defined the terms of Cuban–U.S. relations to essentially be an unequal one of U.S. dominance over Cuba. 12. 1900: Foraker Act, established civilian government on the island of Puerto Rico 13. 1902: Newlands Reclamation Act = funded irrigation projects for the arid lands of 20 states in the American West (helped settlement). 14. 1903: Elkins Act = authorized the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) to impose heavy fines on railroads 15. 1906: Hepburn Act, 1906 United States federal law that gave the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) the power to set maximum railroad rates 16. 1906: Pure Food and Drug Act, required truth in labeling, consumer protection laws 17. 1906: Meat Inspection Act, meat products are slaughtered and processed under sanitary conditions 18. 1909: Payne–Aldrich Tariff Act, bill raising certain tariffs on goods entering the United States. The high rates angered Republican reformers (ie TR), and led to a deep split in the Republican Party. 19. 1913: Revenue Act of 1913, (including Underwood Tariff) federal income tax following the ratification of the Sixteenth Amendment and lowered basic tariff rates from 40% to 25%, well below the Payne-Aldrich Tariff Act of 1909. 20. 1913: Federal Reserve Act, Established 12 Federal Reserve banks The Federal Reserve could transfer money to banks in times of crisis so people would not loose saving and bank would not fail. THE FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM COULD PUT MORE MONEY INTO CIRCULATION OR WITHDRAW MONEY FROM CIRCULATION DEPENDING UPON THE NEEDS OF THE TIME. 21. 1914: Clayton Antitrust Act, Hailed by organized labor as a great victory: meant to promote competition in businesses and discourage the formation of monopolies. This act prohibited price discrimination, price fixing, and exclusive sales contracts. The act also legalized peaceful strikes and boycotts against companies. a) declared strikes, picketing and boycotts legal 22. 1917: Selective Service Act of 1917, authorized the federal government to raise a national army for the American entry into World War I through the compulsory enlistment of people. Draft 23. 1917: Espionage Act of 1917, 1917 Aimed at treasonable and disloyal activities. 24. October 18, 1919: National Prohibition Act (Volstead Act), Federal government can enforce prohibition 25. May 19, 1921: Emergency Quota Act (Johnson Quota Act), Stat. 5 1921Limited the number of Europeans who could have been admitted to the U.S. to 3% of the total number of persons of their nationality residing in the U.S. in 1910. 26. September 21, 1922: Fordney–McCumber Tariff, raised American tariffs on many imported goods in order to protect factories and farms. 27. June 17, 1930: Smoot–Hawley Tariff Act, June 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels. 28. March 9, 1933: Emergency Banking Relief Act, which was intended to restore Americans’ confidence in banks when they reopened. Provided for the reopening of the banks as soon as examiners found them to be financially secure 29. March 31, 1933: Civilian Conservation Corps Reforestation Relief Act, Public work relief program related to the conservation and development of natural resources in rural lands owned by federal, state and local governments. 30. May 12, 1933: Agricultural Adjustment Act, paying farmers subsidies not to plant on part of their land and to kill off excess livestock. Its purpose was to reduce crop surplus and therefore effectively raise the value of crops 31. May 18, 1933: Tennessee Valley Authority Act, Provide navigation, flood control, and economic development to the Tennessee Valley, a region particularly affected by the Great Depression. 32. 1933: Glass-Stengall Act, Banking Reform Act, prohibited commercial banks from participating in the investment banking business. 1933 Created the FDIC 33. 1935: National Labor Relations Act (Wagner Act), to encourage collective bargaining, and to curtail certain private sector labor and management practices, which can harm the general welfare of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy 34. 1935: Social Security Act, provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits 35. 1937: Neutrality Acts of 1937 response to the growing turmoil in Europe and Asia and spurred by the growth in isolationism and non-interventionism in the US following its costly involvement in World War I, and sought to ensure that the US would not become entangled again in foreign conflicts by making i illegal to sell goods or give loans to countries at war. 36. 1939: Cash and Carry Act, allowed the sale of material to countries at war, as long as the recipients arranged for the transport using their own ships and paid immediately in cash, assuming all risk in transportation 37. 1940: Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, required that men between the ages of 21 and 35 register with local draft boards (11/14/42 ages changed 18- 37) 38. 1941: Lend Lease Act, the United States supplied Free France, the United Kingdom, the Republic of China, and later the USSR and other Allied nations with food, oil 39. 1944: Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 (G.I. Bill), aid for the readjustment in civilian life of returning World War II veterans 40. 1947: Assistance to Greece and Turkey Act (Truman Doctrine) American foreign policy to stop Soviet imperialist threats to Greece and Turkey. 41. 1948: Foreign Assistance Act (Marshall Plan) economic support to help rebuild Western European economies after the end of World War II. 42. 1955: Interstate Highway Act, federally funded construction of 41,000 miles of expressway in U.S. 43. 1958: National Aeronautics and Space Act, Agency of the United States Federal Government responsible for the civilian space program as well as aeronautics and aerospace research (Cold War) 44. 1964: Civil Rights Act of 1964, Outlawed segregation in public accommodations, prohibited discrimination in employment on the basis of race, religion, or sex, - most far reaching piece of civil rights legislation in American History, created Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigates discrimination complaints based on an individual's race, color, national origin, religion, sex 45. 1965: Social Security Act of 1965, (including Medicaid and Medicare) insurance for the elderly and poor 46. 1965: Voting Rights Act of 1965, Suspended literacy tests for voting and authorized federal registration of voters 47. 1968: Civil Rights Act of 1968, ended defacto segregation, provided for equal housing opportunities regardless of race 48. 1973: War Powers Act 1973 Passed over Nixon's veto, president can only commit American troops for 60 days without approval of Congress 49. 1990: Americans with Disabilities Act, prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability 50. 1993: Family and Medical Leave Act, Requiring employers to provide employees job-protected and 12 weeks unpaid leave for qualified medical and family reasons 51. 1993: National Voter Registration Act of 1993, The Motor Voter Act, required state governments to offer voter registration opportunities to any eligible person who applies for or renews a driver's license or public assistance 52. 1993: Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Brady Bill) mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases 53. 1993: North American Free Trade Agreement Act, Free Trade Agreement is an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States. .
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]
  • The Death of the Income Tax (Or, the Rise of America's Universal Wage
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 95 Issue 4 Article 5 Fall 2000 The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax) Edward J. McCaffery University of Southern California;California Institute of Tecnology, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Estates and Trusts Commons, Law and Economics Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons, Taxation-State and Local Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation McCaffery, Edward J. (2000) "The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax)," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 95 : Iss. 4 , Article 5. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol95/iss4/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Death of the Income Tax (or, The Rise of America’s Universal Wage Tax) EDWARD J. MCCAFFERY* I. LOOMINGS When Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, just weeks into her tenure as America’s youngest member of Congress, floated the idea of a sixty or seventy percent top marginal tax rate on incomes over ten million dollars, she was met with a predictable mixture of shock, scorn, and support.1 Yet there was nothing new in the idea. AOC, as Representative Ocasio-Cortez is popularly known, was making a suggestion with sound historical precedent: the top marginal income tax rate in America had exceeded ninety percent during World War II, and stayed at least as high as seventy percent until Ronald Reagan took office in 1981.2 And there is an even deeper sense in which AOC’s proposal was not as radical as it may have seemed at first.
    [Show full text]
  • Sixteenth Amendment
    The Sixteenth Amendment 100 Years of the Federal Income Tax “The hardest thing in the world to understand is the income tax.” ~ Albert Einstein Americans have now been grappling with the income tax for 100 years. Since the 16th Amendment was ratified by Congress in 1913, U.S. citizens have been attempting to accurately complete Form 1040. While the annual income tax exercise is fresh in our minds, we thought it would be informative and somewhat gratifying to look back at the process that brought us here, and the tax rates that confronted tax payers on this anniversary in prior years. History of the Sixteenth Amendment Prior to 1913, the main source of revenue for the federal government was tariffs. Tariffs, it was argued, disproportionately affected the poor and were unpredictable. It was felt by many that the solution was a federal income tax. The resolution proposing the Sixteenth Amendment was passed by Congress on July 12, 1909 and ratified in 1913. The Amendment stated “Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.” What followed was The Revenue Act of 1913, also called the Tariff Act, since its purpose was to lower basic tariff rates and compensate for lost revenues by imposing a federal income tax. The first tax filing in 1914 The federal income tax started at 1% on personal income of more than $3,000 (over $71,000 in today’s dollars1) for single filers or $4,000 for couples, with a surtax of 6% on incomes over $500,000.
    [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]
  • Four States Challenge the Cap on SALT Deductions Erik M
    Four States Challenge the Cap on SALT Deductions Erik M. Jensen* The attorneys general of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Maryland have fi led a complaint in New York v. Mnuchin, chal- lenging the constitutionality of the $10,000 cap on the deduction for state and local taxes established the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017. This article considers the most important of the states’ claims and concludes that none of them is convincing. Introduction In a recent article in the Journal, I set out my preliminary thoughts as to why the cap on the deductibility of state and local taxes (SALT), included in what is generally called the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Tax Cuts Act),1 should survive constitutional challenge.2 (The cap: Starting this year—and, at least for now, scheduled to expire after 2025—individual taxpayers will be able to deduct no more than $10,000 per year of the otherwise potentially deductible taxes paid to state and local governments (generally income and property taxes).3) I noted that the leaders of three blue (Democratic) states— New York, Connecticut, and New Jersey—intended to challenge the cap on constitutional grounds because of the unhappy consequences the cap will have on many taxpayers in their states. The complaint in that suit, New York v. Mnuchin (with Maryland added to the list of plaintiffs), was fi led by the four state attorneys general, all Democrats, in July.4 The complaint makes a * Erik M. Jensen is the Coleman P. Burke Professor Emeritus of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and is Editor-in-Chief of the Journal.
    [Show full text]
  • The Progressive Movement and the Reforming of the United States of America, from 1890 to 1921
    2014 Democratic and Popular Republic of Algeria. Ministry of Higher Education and Scientific Research. University of Oran. Faculty of Letters, Languages, and Arts. Department of English. Research Paper Submitted for a Doctorate Thesis in American Civilisation Entitled: The Progressive Movement and the Reforming of the United States of America, from 1890 to 1921. Presented by: Benketaf, Abdel Hafid. Jury Members Designation University Pr. Bouhadiba, Zoulikha President Oran Pr. Borsali, Fewzi Supervisor Adrar Pr. Bedjaoui, Fouzia Examiner 1 Sidi-Belabes Dr. Moulfi, Leila Examiner 2 Oran Dr. Belmeki, Belkacem Examiner 3 Oran Dr. Afkir, Mohamed Examiner 4 Laghouat Academic Year: 2013-2014. 1 Acknowledgements Acknowledgments are gratefully made for the assistance of numerous friends and acquaintances. The largest debt is to Professor Borsali, Fewzi because his patience, sound advice, and pertinent remarks were of capital importance in the accomplishment of this thesis. I would not close this note of appreciation without alluding to the great aid provided by my wife Fatima Zohra Melki. 2 Dedication To my family, I dedicate this thesis. Pages Contents 3 List of Tables. ........................................................................................................................................................................ vi List of Abbreviations......................................................................................................................................................... vii Introduction. ........................................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • A History of US Trade Policy
    This PDF is a selection from a published volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: Clashing over Commerce: A History of U.S. Trade Policy Volume Author/Editor: Douglas A. Irwin Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBNs: 978-0-226-39896-9 (cloth); 0-226-39896-X (cloth); 978-0-226-67844-3 (paper); 978-0-226-39901-0 (e-ISBN) Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/irwi-2 Conference Date: n/a Publication Date: November 2017 Chapter Title: Protectionism Entrenched, 1890–1912 Chapter Author(s): Douglas A. Irwin Chapter URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c13856 Chapter pages in book: (p. 276 – 329) Chapter six Protectionism Entrenched, 1890– 1912 he enactment of the McKinley tariff after the Great Tariff Debate of T1888 once again postponed any signifi cant change in the post– Civil War import duties. The system of protection through high tariffs seemed politically secure and fi rmly entrenched. Those duties were sometimes de- fended on the grounds that they helped the United States to become an industrial nation, a claim that is examined in this chapter. However, the turn of the century brought a signifi cant new development that had the potential to alter the course of US trade policy: for the fi rst time in its his- tory, the United States became a net exporter of manufactured goods. This dramatic shift in the pattern of trade gave many large industries an inter- est in promoting exports through reciprocity agreements rather than being sheltered behind high protective tariffs. Yet this ultimately failed to bring about any changes in policy: import duties remained high, Democrats squandered their one opportunity to enact lower tariffs, Congress rejected reciprocity agreements, and the partisan battle between Republicans and Democrats over trade policy continued unabated.
    [Show full text]
  • The "Public Trust" As It Is Used in Article VI
    THE "PUBIC TRUST" JenniferAnglim Kreder ABSTRACT It seems as if no one really knows the meaning of the term "public Trust" used in the Religious Test Clause of Article VI of the U.S. Constitution. 7iis Article is the first scholarly attempt to define the term by exploring historical evidence pre-dating the nation's jounding through the Constitution's adoption, including British and colonial trust law that influenced the Founders' conception of the term. Today, one can find the term used only in the cases and scholarship concerning environmental law, tax law and museum law. After a thorough analysis of the old and new sources, this Article proposes the following original definition of term "public Trust": "Any entity given special privilege by the government, beyond the simple grant of a state corporate charteroften coupled with state or federal tax waivers, so long as that entity is legally obligated to engage in conduct that could traditionally have been performed by the government itself for the public's benefit." TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ..................................... ..... 1426 I. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF ARTICLE VI............ .... 1428 A. The Stuart Period & Colonial Era......... ............... 1429 B. The Foundingand Early Republic ................... 1430 C. InterpretationalFoundations .................. ..... 1434 D. Fiduciary Underpinnings .......................... 1438 II. MODERN SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PUBLIC TRUST....... ..... 1440 A. Judicially Recognized Trusts and Non-Profit Corporations.. 1441 B. EnvironmentalRegulation ......................... 1443 1. Historical Origins of the Environmental "PublicTrust * Professor of Law, Salmon P. Chase College of Law. The author wishes to disclose that she has done a limited amount of legal work for American Atheists, Inc., including in Ameri- can Atheists, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History
    Order Code 98-473 Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Updated April 11, 2007 Gregg A. Esenwein Specialist in Public Finance Government and Finance Division Individual Capital Gains Income: Legislative History Summary Since the enactment of the individual income tax in 1913, the appropriate taxation of capital gains income has been a perennial topic of debate in Congress. Almost immediately legislative steps were initiated to change and modify the tax treatment of capital gains and losses. The latest changes in the tax treatment of individual capital gains income occurred in 1998 and 2003. It is highly probable that capital gains taxation will continue to be a topic of legislative interest in the 109th Congress. Capital gains income is often discussed as if it were somehow different from other forms of income. Yet, for purposes of income taxation, it is essentially no different from any other form of income from capital. A capital gain or loss is merely the result of a sale or exchange of a capital asset. An asset sold for a higher price than its acquisition price produces a gain, an asset sold for a lower price than its acquisition price produces a loss. Ideally, a tax consistent with a theoretically correct measure of income would be assessed on real (inflation-adjusted) income when that income accrues to the taxpayer. Conversely, real losses would be deducted as they accrue to the taxpayer. In addition, under an ideal comprehensive income tax, any untaxed real appreciation in the value of capital assets given as gifts or bequests would be subject to tax at the time of transfer.
    [Show full text]
  • Entity Classification: the One Hundred-Year Debate
    Catholic University Law Review Volume 44 Issue 2 Winter 1995 Article 3 1995 Entity Classification: The One Hundred-Year Debate Patrick E. Hobbs Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Patrick E. Hobbs, Entity Classification: The One Hundred-Year Debate, 44 Cath. U. L. Rev. 437 (1995). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol44/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ENTITY CLASSIFICATION: THE ONE HUNDRED-YEAR DEBATE Patrick E. Hobbs* I. Introduction ................................................. 437 II. Evolution of the Tax Definition of the Term "Corporation".. 441 A. The Revenue Act of 1894 ............................... 441 B. The Corporate Excise Tax of 1909 ....................... 452 C. After the Sixteenth Amendment: A Case of Floating Commas and Misplaced Modifiers ....................... 459 D. Developing a Corporate Composite ..................... 468 III. The Failure of the Resemblance Test ........................ 481 A. The Professional Corporation ............................ 481 B. The Limited Partnership ................................. 491 C. The Limited Liability Company .......................... 510 IV . Conclusion .................................................. 518 I. INTRODUCTION One hundred years ago, in the Revenue Act of 1894,1 Congress en- acted our Nation's first peacetime income tax.2 Although the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional within a year of its enactment,3 at least * Associate Professor of Law, Seton Hall University School of Law. B.S., 1982, Se- ton Hall University; J.D., 1985, University of North Carolina; LL.M., 1988, New York Uni- versity.
    [Show full text]
  • "Relief" Provisions in the Revenue Act of 1943
    "RELIEF" PROVISIONS IN THE REVENUE ACT OF 1943 By JAMES E. FAHEY t THE Revenue Act of 1943 1 is an anomaly in the framework of income tax legislation.2 Its most obvious distinction lies in the manner of its enactment. It is the first revenue raising measure ever to be vetoed by a president and the first ever to be passed over veto. The political storm which engulfed Congress and the President over the bill's passage cen- tered in large measure over the so-called "relief" provisions found in the bill. These provisions alternately have been defended as accomplishing the correction of existing inequities in the law and assailed as providing loopholes enabling certain favored individuals and industries to avoid their equitable share in financing the war. A scrutinization of these con- troversial provisions in the light of the situations which they were de- signed to change may serve to focus the issue more clearly for the reader whose opinions are yet to be crystallized. Specifically, the President's veto message ' criticized five "relief" pro- visions in the bill as being special privilege measures. They were the provision for non-recognition of gain or loss on corporate reorganiza- tions carried on under court supervision and the concomitant "basis" provision,4 the extension of percentage depletion to certain minerals which were theretofore denied its use,' a provision making optional to taxpay- ers in the timber or logging business an accounting procedure which would enable them to treat the cutting of their timber as the sale of a capital asset,6 the extension of favored excess profits tax treatment formerly given only to producers of minerals and timber to producers of natural gas,7 and a broadening of the existing exemption of air mail carriers from excess profits taxes.8 t fember of the Kentucky Bar; Lecturer in Taxation, University of Louisville Law School.
    [Show full text]
  • The Gilded Age Roots of Trump's Trade Philosophy
    The Gilded Age roots of Trump’s Trade Philosophy - Not Even Past BOOKS FILMS & MEDIA THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN BLOG TEXAS OUR/STORIES STUDENTS ABOUT 15 MINUTE HISTORY "The past is never dead. It's not even past." William Faulkner NOT EVEN PAST Tweet 26 Like THE PUBLIC HISTORIAN The Gilded Age roots of Trump’s Trade Philosophy Making History: Houston’s “Spirit of the by Marc-William Palen Confederacy” This article was originally published in The Washington Post on November 5, 2019 as The dangers of President Trump’s favorite word — reciprocity: The Gilded Age roots of Trump’s trade philosophy. “ ‘Reciprocity’: my favorite word,” President Trump has stated time and again since becoming president. What he means by “reciprocity” is “fair trade” instead of free trade, by using tariffs to retaliate against any trade barriers imposed by other countries. “If somebody is charging us 50 percent, we should charge them 50 percent,” Trump has explained. May 06, 2020 But Trump’s version of reciprocity is not simply “an ambitious campaign to reform international trade,” as he recently argued in a U.N. speech deriding “globalism.” Nor is it new. More from The Public Historian BOOKS America for Americans: A History of Xenophobia in the United States by Erika Lee (2019) April 20, 2020 More Books DIGITAL HISTORY Donald Trump at a rally in Arizona, August 2016. (Photo by Gage Skidmore via Flickr) Rather, it is a return to an old way of leveraging U.S. power against more vulnerable states under an Más de 72: Digital Archive Review ostensibly fair framework.
    [Show full text]