DOCSLIB.ORG

(CDP): Amend Internal Revenue Code § 6330 to Provide That The

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
(CDP): Amend Internal Revenue Code § 6330 to Provide That The Most Serious Legislative Most Litigated Case Advocacy Appendices Problems Recommendations Issues LR COLLECTION DUE PROCESS (CDP): Amend Internal Revenue #4 Code § 6330 to Provide That the Standard and Scope of Tax Court Review in CDP Cases Is De Novo Regardless of Whether the Underlying Liability Is at Issue TAXPAYER RIGHTS IMPACTED1 ■■ The Right to Challenge the IRS’s Position and Be Heard ■■ The Right to Appeal an IRS Decision in an Independent Forum ■■ The Right to Privacy ■■ The Right to a Fair and Just Tax System PROBLEM Two related concepts affect how courts evaluate the correctness of an IRS action or determination: scope of review and standard of review. “The scope of judicial review refers to the evidence the reviewing court will examine in reviewing an agency decision. The standard of judicial review refers to how the reviewing court will examine that evidence.”2 When the scope of review is de novo, a court reviewing an IRS determination does not limit its consideration to evidence already contained in the IRS’s administrative record, but engages in independent fact-finding and may receive into evidence testimony and exhibits that were not included in the administrative record.3 The alternative arrangement, sometimes referred to as the “record” rule, requires the reviewing court to base its judgment only on evidence already contained in the IRS’s administrative record. When the standard of review is de novo, the reviewing court considers the evidence before it anew, without deference to the IRS’s determination.4 When the standard of review is for abuse of discretion, the court overturns the IRS’s determination only where it is shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or without sound basis in fact.5 Since 1924, when review of a taxpayer’s pre-payment challenge to the validity of a proposed assessment first became available, the scope and standard of judicial review has beende novo.6 Since 1998, when review of a taxpayer’s pre-payment challenge to proposed collection of an assessed tax became available pursuant to the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 (RRA 98), the nature of judicial review has depended on whether the underlying tax liability is at issue.7 In collection due process (CDP) cases, if the underlying tax liability is at issue, the scope and standard of judicial review is de novo.8 If the underlying 1 See Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TBOR), www.TaxpayerAdvocate.irs.gov/taxpayer-rights. The rights contained in the TBOR are now listed in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). See Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, Division Q, Title IV, § 401(a) (2015) (codified at IRC § 7803(a)(3)). 2 Franklin Sav. Ass’n v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 934 F.2d 1127, 1136 (10th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). 3 Robinette v. Comm’r, 123 T.C. 85, 95 (2004), rev’d 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006). 4 Porter v. Comm’r, 132 T.C. 203 (2009). 5 Jonson v. Comm’r, 118 T.C. 106, 125 (2002), aff’d 353 F.3d 1181 (10th Cir. 2003). 6 See Appeal of Barry, 1 B.T.A. 156 (1924); Greenberg’s Express, Inc. v. Comm’r, 62 T.C. 324 (1974). 7 Pub. L. 105–206, § 3401, 112 Stat. 685, 746, enacting IRC §§ 6320 and 6330, discussed below. 8 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-599, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. Part 2, at 266 (1998). 364 Legislative Recommendations — Collection Due Process: Court Review in CDP Cases Is De Novo Most Litigated Legislative Most Serious Appendices Case Advocacy Issues Recommendations Problems liability is not at issue, the standard of review is for abuse of discretion.9 As discussed below, this standard of review places an unnecessary burden on taxpayers, for whom the event of collecting the tax is at least as important as the previous determination to assess additional tax. The courts do not agree as to the appropriate scope of review in CDP cases when the underlying tax is not at issue. In Robinette v. Commissioner, the Tax Court held that where the underlying liability is not at issue the scope of its review is de novo.10 Thus, the court considered evidence introduced at trial that was not part of the administrative record. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed the Tax Court’s decision, holding that the Tax Court’s review in Robinette was limited to the administrative record.11 The Courts of Appeal for the First and Ninth Circuits agree with the Eighth Circuit, as does the IRS Office of Chief Counsel.12 The Tax Court continues to adhere to its position, however, except in cases appealable to the First, Eighth, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal.13 Restricting judicial review to the administrative record in CDP cases harms taxpayers, especially those who cannot afford representation or assistance during administrative proceedings. The divergence in the courts with respect to the appropriate scope of review when the underlying tax is not at issue creates uncertainty for taxpayers and consumes administrative and judicial resources. Therefore, the National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that Congress amend Internal Revenue Code (IRC) § 6330 to provide that the scope and standard of review in CDP cases is de novo whether or not the underlying tax liability is at issue. EXAMPLE 1 In response to a final notice of intent to levy, a taxpayer requests a CDP hearing. At the hearing, the taxpayer claims that because she suffers from a medical condition requiring medication, a levy would leave her unable to pay for the medication she needs and still meet basic living expenses. However, the taxpayer, who is unrepresented, does not provide evidence to substantiate her medical condition and the cost of treatment. The Appeals Officer sustains the proposed levy, and the taxpayer petitions the Tax Court for a review of the Appeals Officer’s determination. At trial, the taxpayer retains a representative, who submits documentation that demonstrates the taxpayer suffers from a medical condition and substantiates the cost of treatment. Any appeal of the Tax Court’s decision will be heard by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Tax Court admits into evidence the additional information. If an appeal of the Tax Court’s decision would be heard by the First, Eighth, or Ninth Circuits, the Tax Court would not have admitted the additional information into evidence and would be unable to consider it in reaching its decision in the case. EXAMPLE 2 During a CDP hearing, a taxpayer, who is a construction worker with the equivalent of an eighth grade education and for whom English is a second language, submits a Form 433-A, Collection Information Statement, which lists his assets, liabilities, income, and expenses in support of his proposed offer in compromise (OIC). The Appeals Officer refuses to consider some of the documentation the taxpayer 9 H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 105-599, 105th Cong. 2d Sess. Part 2, at 266 (1998). 10 Robinette v. Comm’r, 123 T.C. 85 (2004), rev’d 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006). 11 Robinette v. Comm’r, 439 F.3d 455 (8th Cir. 2006) rev’g 123 T.C. 85 (2004). 12 Murphy v. Comm’r, 469 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2006) aff’g 125 T.C. 301 (2005); Keller v. Comm’r, 568 F.3d 710 (9th Cir. 2009) aff’g in part T.C. Memo. 2006-166; Chief Counsel Notice CC-2014-002 (May 5, 2014). 13 See Golsen v. Comm’r, 54 T.C. 742, 757 (1970), aff’d 445 F.2d 985 (10th Cir. 1971), discussed below. Taxpayer Advocate Service — 2016 Annual Report to Congress — Volume One 365 Most Serious Legislative Most Litigated Case Advocacy Appendices Problems Recommendations Issues submits in support of his claimed income and expenses because the documents are handwritten, torn, and ungrammatical. At the conclusion of a CDP hearing, the Appeals Officer sustains the rejection of a taxpayer’s OIC. The Tax Court, applying an abuse of discretion standard, upholds the Appeals Officer’s determination even though the judge reviewing the case would have evaluated the documentation differently, taking into account the taxpayer’s occupation, level of education, and English language skills. RECOMMENDATION The National Taxpayer Advocate recommends that Congress amend IRC § 6330 to specify that the standard and scope of review in Tax Court determinations under IRC § 6330, including the verification required by IRC § 6330(c)(1), is de novo whether or not the underlying liability is at issue. PRESENT LAW Background The enactment of IRC §§ 6320 and 6330 as part of RRA 98 represented a profound departure from then-current tax collection procedures.14 The rules for reviewing a tax deficiency as well as the rules for reviewing IRS collection action provide context for those changes. Standard and Scope of Review in Deficiency Proceedings Prior to 1924, taxpayers had no independent forum in which to contest, on a prepayment basis, the IRS’s determination of a deficiency in tax.15 A taxpayer who disagreed with the IRS’s determination could only pay the tax and then seek a refund in a federal district court or in the U.S. Court of Claims.16 Congress remedied this situation in 1924 by creating the Board of Tax Appeals (BTA), the predecessor to the U.S. Tax Court, as an independent agency of the executive branch.17 Taxpayers could request BTA review of the IRS’s final deficiency determinations. Proceedings before the Board were conducted as follows: When a taxpayer brings his case before the Board he proceeds by trial de novo. The record of the case made in the Internal Revenue Bureau is not before the Board except in so far as it may be properly placed in evidence by the taxpayer or by the Commissioner.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future Richard Pomp University of Connecticut School of Law
    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Faculty Articles and Papers School of Law Spring 1993 The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future Richard Pomp University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers Part of the Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Taxation-State and Local Commons Recommended Citation Pomp, Richard, "The Disclosure of State Corporate Income Tax Data: Turning the Clock Back to the Future" (1993). Faculty Articles and Papers. 121. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/121 +(,121/,1( Citation: 22 Cap. U. L. Rev. 373 1993 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Aug 15 17:19:23 2016 -- 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=0198-9693 THE DISCLOSURE OF STATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX DATA: TURNING THE CLOCK BACK TO THE FUTURE RICHARD D. POMP* INTRODUCTION .............................................. 374 I. THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME TAX INFORMATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL: AN HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE .......... 378 A. The Civil War Income Taxes: 1861-1872 ............... 379 B. The 1894 Income Tax ................................ 384 C. The Tariff Act of 1909 ............................... 386 D . 1913-1923 .......................................... 389 E. The 1924 and 1926 Acts ............................... 391 F. The Pink Slip Provisions: 1934-1935 ................
    [Show full text]
  • Ways and Means Committee's Request for the Former President's
    (Slip Opinion) Ways and Means Committee’s Request for the Former President’s Tax Returns and Related Tax Information Pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 6103(f )(1) Section 6103(f )(1) of title 26, U.S. Code, vests the congressional tax committees with a broad right to receive tax information from the Department of the Treasury. It embod- ies a long-standing judgment of the political branches that the tax committees are uniquely suited to receive such information. The committees, however, cannot compel the Executive Branch to disclose such information without satisfying the constitutional requirement that the information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose. In assessing whether requested information could serve a legitimate legislative purpose, the Executive Branch must give due weight to Congress’s status as a co-equal branch of government. Like courts, therefore, Executive Branch officials must apply a pre- sumption that Legislative Branch officials act in good faith and in furtherance of legit- imate objectives. When one of the congressional tax committees requests tax information pursuant to section 6103(f )(1), and has invoked facially valid reasons for its request, the Executive Branch should conclude that the request lacks a legitimate legislative purpose only in exceptional circumstances. The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has invoked sufficient reasons for requesting the former President’s tax information. Under section 6103(f )(1), Treasury must furnish the information to the Committee. July 30, 2021 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE ACTING GENERAL COUNSEL DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY The Internal Revenue Code requires the Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) and the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) to keep tax returns and related information confidential, 26 U.S.C.
    [Show full text]
  • 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]
  • The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws
    The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin Edwin S. Cohen Distinguished Professor of Law and Taxation University of Virginia Former Chief of Staff, Joint Committee on Taxation February 2016 Draft prepared for the United States Capitol Historical Society’s program on The History and Role of the Joint Committee: the Joint Committee and Tax History Comments welcome. THE UNITED STATES CAPITOL HISTORICAL SOCIETY THE JCT@90 WASHINGTON, DC FEBRUARY 25, 2016 The Joint Committee on Taxation and Codification of the Tax Laws George K. Yin* February 11, 2016 preliminary draft [Note to conference attendees and other readers: This paper describes the work of the staff of the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation (JCT)1 that led to codification of the tax laws in 1939. I hope eventually to incorporate this material into a larger project involving the “early years” of the JCT, roughly the period spanning the committee’s creation in 1926 and the retirement of Colin Stam in 1964. Stam served on the staff for virtually this entire period; he was first hired (on a temporary basis) in 1927 as assistant counsel, became staff counsel in 1929, and then served as Chief of Staff from 1938 until 1964. He is by far the longest‐serving Chief of Staff the committee has ever had. The conclusions in this draft are still preliminary as I have not yet completed my research. I welcome any comments or questions.] Possibly the most significant accomplishment of the JCT and its staff during the committee’s “early years” was the enactment of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • The Revenue Act of 1934
    March, 1935 THE REVENUE ACT OF 1934 GEORGE GRAYSON TYLER t AND JOHN P. OHL X Congress, probably inspired by the disclosures of the investigations of the Banking and Currency Committee, passed House Resolution 183, on June 9, 1933, thereby authorizing the Ways and Means Committee to in- vestigate methods of preventing the evasion and avoidance of taxes, means of simplifying the revenue laws and possible new sources of revenue. Pur- suant to this Resolution, a Subcommittee of the Committee on \Ways and Means conducted an inquiry prior to the convening of the second session of the 73d Congress. The Subcommittee filed "A Preliminary Report" ' on December 4, 1933, upon the subjects, of tax avoidance, evasion and sim- plification. In response to the Subcommittee's recommendations, the then Acting Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., issued a state- ment 2 differing in many important particulars from the conclusions reached by the Subcommittee. As a result of the above investigations, H. R. 7835 was introduced in the House and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. After extensive hearings 3 the bill was reported out with amendments by the Com- 4 mittee and a report was submitted thereon. On February 21, 1934, the House passed the bill with minor committee amendments. 5 Then, having been introduced in the Senate, the bill was referred to the Finance Com- mittee, which, after further hearings,0 reported it 7 with substantial amend- ments. Further material changes were made on the floor of the Senate s before passage. Thereafter, the Conference Committee on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses made its recommendations reconciling the differ- j- Formerly assistant to Professor Roswell Magill, former assistant to the Secretary of the Treasury; member of the New York Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response
    The Revenue Act of 1924: Publicity, Tax Cuts, Response Daniel Marcin∗ March 25, 2014 Abstract The elasticity of taxable income (ETI) with respect to the marginal net-of-tax rate is an estimate of the aggregate response to tax rate changes. It is estimated without attributing cause to avoidance, evasion, or changes in economic growth. Historical ETI estimates in the public nance literature often rely on assumptions about income dynamics. A provision in the Revenue Act of 1924 for publicity of income tax returns allowed major newspapers to run lists of names, addresses, and tax payments in their pages. From these records, I constructed a dataset of very high income taxpayers. Over 10,000 individuals can be easily matched between the two years. In addition, the Revenue Act of 1924 sharply cut marginal tax rates. These changes can be used to estimate the ETI without distribution or rank preservation assumptions. Preliminary estimates indicate a positive ETI around 0.3 to 0.6, consistent with previous research. ∗Acknowledgements: Paul Rhode, David Albouy, Martha Bailey, and Josh Hausman for serving on my committee, seminar participants at Michigan, the Midwest Economics Association, the Economics and Busi- ness History Society, the World Cliometric Congress, and Nic Duquette for various helpful comments. Fund- ing: SRA, OTPR, Rackham, EHA, MITRE 1 I wish it to be understood that I have not the slightest prejudice against multi-millionaires. I like them. But I always feel this way when I meet one of them: You have made millionsgood; that means you have something in you. I wish you would show it.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 61 | Issue 3 Article 4 Summer 6-1-2004 Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A. Bank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation Steven A. Bank, Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms, 61 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 1159 (2004), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol61/iss3/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Tax, Corporate Governance, and Norms Steven A. Bank* Abstract This Article examines the use offederal tax provisions to effect changes in state law corporategovernance. There is a growingacademic controversy over these provisions,fueled in part by their popularityamong legislators as a method of addressing the recent spate of corporatescandals. As a case study on the use of tax to regulate corporategovernance, this paper compares and contrasts two measures enacted during the New Deal-the enactment of the undistributedprofits tax in 1936 and the overhaul of the tax-free reorganizationprovisions in 1934-and considers why theformer was so much more controversialand less sustainablethan the latter. While some of the difference can be explained by the different political and economic circumstances surrounding each proposal, this Article argues that the divergence in the degree of opposition can be explained in part by an examination of the extent to which each provision threatened an underlying norm, or longstanding standard,of corporate behavior.
    [Show full text]
  • James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the “Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,” and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff
    NYU/UCLA TAX SYMPOSIUM THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE AT 100 OCTOBER 19, 2012 James Couzens, Andrew Mellon, the “Greatest Tax Suit in the History of the World,” and Creation of the Joint Committee on Taxation and Its Staff George K. Yin University of Virginia School of Law September 27, 2012 DRAFT Abstract In early 1924, James Couzens was a Republican Senator from Michigan and reportedly the richest member of Congress. Andrew Mellon was beginning his fourth year as Secretary of the Treasury — a service that would eventually span 11 years under three Republican Administrations — and one of the wealthiest persons in the entire country. This article describes how a feud between these two men, an ensuing investigation led by Couzens of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) (predecessor to the modern‐day IRS), and a tax case against Couzens that was described as the “greatest tax suit in the history of the world,” helped lead to creation of the U.S. Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) and its staff. The events — filled with political intrigue, backstabbing (real or imagined), and unintended consequences — antagonized Congress’s relationship with the executive branch, but improved cooperation between the House and Senate, and both were instrumental in the JCT’s creation. The story also provides insight on the unique role the JCT has played in Congress for over 85 years. Finally, the article explains how creation of the JCT became entangled with two of the most contentious tax issues of the day — the publicity of tax return information and the depletion allowance for oil and gas production — and played a role in changing the law in both areas.
    [Show full text]
  • The Charitable Deduction for Individuals: a Brief Legislative History
    The Charitable Deduction for Individuals: A Brief Legislative History Updated June 26, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46178 SUMMARY R46178 The Charitable Deduction for Individuals: June 26, 2020 A Brief Legislative History Margot L. Crandall-Hollick This report provides a brief history of the major legislative changes to the charitable deduction Acting Section Research that have occurred over the past 100 years, focusing on changes to the amount that taxpayers Manager could deduct. Over the past 100 years, Congress has generally increased the amount that eligible taxpayers can deduct for their charitable donations. These changes are summarized in the below table. As Congress has expanded the amount that can be deducted by those who claim the deduction, policymakers have debated the deduction’s effectiveness at increasing charitable giving and the broader role of government subsidies for the philanthropic sector—a discussion that continues to this day. Major Legislative Changes to the Charitable Deduction for Individuals, 1917-Present Year Public Law Legislative Changes 1917 P.L. 65-50 Enacted the charitable deduction for individuals. Applicable to contributions of cash or gifts to organizations operated for religious, charitable, scientific, or education purposes or for the prevention of cruelty to animals or children. Maximum allowable deduction capped at 15% of taxable income. 1924 P.L. 68-176 Enacted the unlimited charitable deduction (UCD), which waived the 15% limitation for taxpayers who made consistently large charitable contributions. 1944 P.L. 78-315 Changed income measure for limitation from taxable income to adjusted gross income (AGI). Hence, charitable deduction was limited to 15% of AGI.
    [Show full text]
  • The Taxation of Prizes and Awards—Tax Policy Winners and Losers
    Washington Law Review Volume 63 Number 2 4-1-1988 The Taxation of Prizes and Awards—Tax Policy Winners and Losers Bruce I. Kogan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr Part of the Taxation-Federal Commons Recommended Citation Bruce I. Kogan, The Taxation of Prizes and Awards—Tax Policy Winners and Losers, 63 Wash. L. Rev. 257 (1988). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/wlr/vol63/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at UW Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington Law Review by an authorized editor of UW Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE TAXATION OF PRIZES AND AWARDS- TAX POLICY WINNERS AND LOSERS Bruce I. Kogan* I. Introduction ................................ 257 II. Evolution of the Statutory Pattern ...................... 259 A. The Early Years (1913-1954) ...................... 259 B. Section 74 of the 1954 Code ....................... 269 C. The Middle Years (1954-1986) .................... 271 D. Employer-Employee Awards: A Problem Area ..... 277 E. Tax Reform Act of 1986 Changes in Section 74(b).. 286 III. Analysis of Policy Implications of New Section 74(b) ... 288 A. Background for Tax Reform ....................... 288 B. Reasons Offered for Changing Section 74(b) ........ 294 C. Critique of Legislative Rationale ................... 296 1. Undue Complexity ............................. 296 2. Past Problems in Applying Section 74(b) ....... 297 3. Limited Numbers of Taxpayers Affected ........ 297 4. Disguised Compensation ....................... 298 5. Prizes as Economic Income .................... 298 6. Exclusion as Tax Expenditure .................. 299 D. Tax Policy and Economic Efficiency ..............
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Managers, Agency Costs, and the Rise of Double Taxation
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 44 (2002-2003) Issue 1 Article 4 October 2002 Corporate Managers, Agency Costs, and the Rise of Double Taxation Steven A. Bank Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Repository Citation Steven A. Bank, Corporate Managers, Agency Costs, and the Rise of Double Taxation, 44 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 167 (2002), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol44/iss1/4 Copyright c 2002 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr CORPORATE MANAGERS, AGENCY COSTS, AND THE RISE OF DOUBLE TAXATION STEVEN A. BANK* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ....................................... 169 I. THE ORIGINS OF A SEPARATE CORPORATE INCOME TAX ..... 173 A. Civil War and Reconstruction ...................... 173 B. State Law Developments in the Taxation of Corporations ................................ 176 C. FederalAdoption of a Separate CorporateIncome Tax . 178 II. THE ADOPTION OF AN UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX ...... 183 A. Campaign of 1932 .............................. 183 B. 1936 and the Revival of the UndistributedProfits Tax ....................... 192 III. DOUBLE TAXATION AS A TOOL IN THE ATTACK ON THE UNDISTRIBUTED PROFITS TAX .................... 198 A. Prelude to the Revenue Act of 1936 ................. 198 B. The Campaign to Defeat the Tax in the Revenue Act of 1936 ............................ 204 1. H ouse ...................................... 204 2. Senate ..................................... 213 3. Conference .................................. 226 * Visiting Professor, UCLA School of Law (2002-2003); Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law. B.A. 1991, University of Pennsylvania; J.D. 1994, University of Chicago.
    [Show full text]