DOCSLIB.ORG

Eternal Inconsistency the Stunning Variability In, and Expedient Motives Behind the Tax Regulation of Nonprofit Advocacy Groups by Allison Hayward

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Eternal Inconsistency the Stunning Variability In, and Expedient Motives Behind the Tax Regulation of Nonprofit Advocacy Groups by Allison Hayward Eternal Inconsistency The Stunning Variability in, and Expedient Motives Behind the Tax Regulation of Nonprofit Advocacy Groups By Allison Hayward Center for Competitive Politics 124 S. West Street, Suite 201 Alexandria, Virginia 22314 www.CampaignFreedom.org Introduction For many, a meeting of the American Bar Association’s Tax Section’s Exempt Organizations would not be expected to elicit much excitement. A typical audience for this event would be limited to those with considerable personal reserves of endurance and those that bill by the hour. The congregation attending the May 2013 gathering no doubt expected something quieter than the IRS scandal that erupted. On that occasion, however, Lois Lerner, head of the IRS Exempt Organizations division, asked an attendee to pose a specific question – seeking an update on concerns raised by Tea Party groups that their applications for exemption under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(4) were be- ing reviewed unfairly.1 Were they being treated fairly? Lerner’s answer: No, they were not. The Treasury Inspector General concurred in a report publicly released (not coincidentally) soon after this meeting.2 In the wake of the ensuing uproar, senior tax officials lost their jobs. Countless pages of Congressional testimony were generated. Experts exchanged pointed analyses over what the legal requirements are, and whether the IRS should be clearer, or even more restrictive, in articulat- ing and applying exemption standards. Six months after revealing that it had targeted the applications of Tea Party organizations for ad- ditional scrutiny, the IRS released proposed regulations defining if, and when, a group that is tax exempt as a “social welfare” organization may be active in politics.3 The proposal departed from the “facts and circumstances” approach currently employed in exemption determinations. It stated explicitly that the exempt social welfare purpose “does not include direct or indirect candidate-re- lated political activity.”4 It then defined eight different kinds of “candidate-related” political activity.5 Among those were express advocacy communications; public communications within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election that refer to a candidate or, in the context of a general elec- tion, a political party; FECA reportable expenditures; or contributions to candidates, Section 527 (political) organizations, or other exempt organizations that do one of the eight forms of “candidate- related political activity”. “Candidate-related political activity” would also include voter registration or get-out-the-vote drives, distributing material from a candidate or 527 organization, distributing voter guides, and hosting events with candidates within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election. This proposal went beyond any fix required by the IRS scandal, which centered around the selective mistreatment of groups seeking exemption. Instead, it betrayed a desire to restrict certain common and effective ways of communicating about policy issues that involve officeholders and candidates. This proposal also iterated a wish list of regulations that have at various times been imposed in the campaign finance arena, and as often been found constitutionally deficient in court. 1 See The Fact Checker, Wash. Post, May 20, 2013. 2 Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, Inappropriate Criteria Were Used to Identify Tax-Exempt Applications for Review, No. 2013-10-053 (May 14, 2013). 3 Guidance for Tax-Exempt Social Welfare Organizations on Candidate-Related Political Activities, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 78 Fed. Reg. 71535 (November 29, 2013). 4 Id. (amending Treas. Reg. 1.501(c)(4)-1). 5 Id. 2 Eternal Inconsistency The agency received over 140,000 comments from experts and members of the public, 87% of which were opposed to the rulemaking (94% were either opposed or partially opposed).6 After meeting such stiff opposition from a wide range of organizations and experts the IRS indicated it would rewrite the proposed regulation.7 When the next version emerges, we should study that draft mindful not only of present contexts, but of the legacy of tax regulation of political activity by nonprofit groups. Much of this history has not been a happy one. Indeed, whether on purpose or not, the IRS has waded into an ancient sea of ill- advised restrictions. The proper tax treatment of what this monograph will call “Nonprofit Advocacy” groups has per- plexed and antagonized activists and tax collectors from the first days of corporate taxation.8 This history reveals persistent problems. First, Members of Congress seem not to appreciate the effects tax amendments will have. They often write tax law to further a short-term political agenda, ignoring likely longer term problems. Often, the short-term plan fails, so the tax rule lacks even that dubious achievement. Second, federal tax collectors overregulate, apply regulations inconsistently, examine controversial groups selectively, and disregard legislative intent to tread lightly. They also generally do not feel restrained by judicial rulings that weigh against aggressive interpretations of the Code or regulations. Must this “eternal inconsistency” -- in which modest if short-sighted statutes become bludgeons of regulation in the IRS’s hands -- be inevitable? Especially in this context where revenue considerations are weak, it would seem that courts should recognize unconstitutional burdens in many situations where courts otherwise give revenue collectors more discretion in other tax matters. In any event, the history leading to 1959 documented here should resonate with groups concerned about IRS over- reach today. This monograph provides the reader with a rich appreciation of how modern regulations governing the activities of these groups (enacted in 1959) came about, and what the rules were before. First, it will show the roots of the tax-exempt corporation in early American laws affecting charities. Then, with the 1909 enactment of the federal corporate excise tax (and the corporate income tax in 1913), it will cover the development of a number of key concepts that remain in federal tax law today. With the 1917 enactment of a donor deduction for charitable contributions, the question of which groups should be able to offer this valuable benefit became more acute. This monograph will show how the Internal Revenue process began to puzzle through how these lines should be drawn. Finally, it will examine the modern Internal Revenue Code’s enactment in 1954, and the four-year process in writing the modern regulations that distinguish charities from social welfare organizations. 6 Matt Nese and Kelsey Drapkin, Overwhelmingly Opposed: An Analysis of Public and 955 Organization, Expert, and Public Official Comments on the IRS’s 501(c)(4) Rulemaking, Center for Competitive Politics, (July 2014), available at: http://www.campaignfreedom. org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/2014-07-08_Issue-Review_Nese-And-Drapkin_Overwhelmingly-Opposed.pdf. 7 Guidance for Tax-Exempt Organizations on Political Campaign Intervention, http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/ eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201410&RIN=1545-BL81. 8 This narrative has coined the term “Nonprofit Advocacy” so the discussion can transcend the various terms of art that have appeared in different iterations of tax law (terms such as “social welfare, “ “action organization” and “propaganda”). It is meant to describe a group that engages in public advocacy of specific policy goals, which themselves are significant to the politics of the era. Not every modern “social welfare” organization would come within this class, but the ones that seem to most vex reformers and regulators would. Center for Competitive Politics 3 Section I Why Nonprofit Groups Incorporate English Roots The reason charitable, civic, and other kinds of nonprofit groups choose to incorporate at all is partly historic accident. Prior to independence, charity in the American colonies was governed by English law, specifically the preamble to the Statute of Elizabeth, 1601 (which itself was based on earlier com- mon law understandings of the proper scope of charity).9 “Charitable” uses included: for Releife of aged impotent and poore people, some for Maintenance of sicke and maymed Souldiers and Marriners, Schooles of Learninge, Free Schooles and Schollers in Universities, some for Repaire of Bridges Portes Havens Causwaies Churches Seabankes and Highwaies, some for Educacion and prefermente of Orphans, some for or towardes Reliefe Stocke or Maintenance of Howses of Correccion, some for Mariages of poore Maides, some for Sup- portacion Ayde and Helpe of younge tradesmen Handicraftesmen and persons decayed, and others for reliefe or redemption of Prisoners or Captives, and for aide or ease of any poore Inhabitantes concerninge paymente of Fifteenes, setting out of Souldiers and other Taxes...10 The vehicle for administering charitable gifts at this point was generally a trust, supervised ultimately by the Crown.11 If such resources were not used for charity, the Statute established legal redress. The Statute’s listed purposes – relief for the poor and sick, education, infrastructure repair, prisons, trains and the rest – was not exhaustive. Analogous uses “within its spirit and intendment” were also included.12 For example, the law deemed hospitals as charitable, although the Statute said nothing about them. Charity included groups with creeds – even controversial ones. Propagating the gospel was “charita- ble,” as were
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]
  • Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation
    United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit ___________________________ No. 19-3189 ___________________________ Mayo Clinic, a Minnesota Corporation lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee v. United States of America lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant ____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________ Submitted: October 20, 2020 Filed: May 13, 2021 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, LOKEN and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. ____________ LOKEN, Circuit Judge. Mayo Clinic (“Mayo”), a Minnesota nonprofit corporation, oversees healthcare system subsidiaries and operates the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science (“Mayo College”). Mayo is a tax-exempt organization under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC), 26 U.S.C. § 501(c)(3).1 After an audit in 2009, the Internal Revenue Service concluded that Mayo owed unrelated business income tax (“UBIT”) on certain investment income it received from the investment pool it manages for its subsidiaries. The IRS issued a Notice of Proposed Adjustment and reaffirmed its position in a 2013 Technical Advice Memorandum. At issue is $11,501,621 in UBIT for tax years 2003, 2005-2007, and 2010-2012. Mayo2 paid the tax and brought this refund action. The issue, briefly stated, is whether Mayo is a “qualified organization” exempted from paying UBIT on “unrelated debt-financed income” under IRC § 514(c)(9)(C)(i). Qualified organizations include “an organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) . .” Section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii) describes “an educational organization which normally maintains a regular faculty and curriculum and normally has a regularly enrolled body of pupils or students in attendance at the place where its educational activities are regularly carried on.” The IRS denied Mayo the exemption because it is not an “educational organization” as defined in 26 C.F.R.
    [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]
  • Misc Publications MP-02
    TAX FOUNDATION, INC. 50 Rockefeller Plaz a New York, N. Y. August 15, 1940 1 FORMM This conrpilation and bibliography are presented in th e hone that they will contribute to a fuller understanding of a difficult and at times controversial subject . In selecting the materials included an effort was made to obtain a cross section of opinions cnnd points of view . Attention is directed to the bibliograpay of periodical and special materials on war, profit s and excess profits thxation issued from 1916 to 1940. In the light of recent event s, the body of literature developed as P. result of our experience with those forms of taxation during and immodiately after the War of 1914--1919 has assumed anew significance . August 15, 1940 xA FOUIMATION 0 At Page Current Proposals 1 Some Aspects of the Profit-Tax Bill 2 The Excess-Profits Tart 3 Taxation and National Defense 4 Holding Up Defense 5 Excess-Profit Tax Hinges on Business 6 The Revenue Angle 7 The Basis 11or An Excess-Profits Tax 9 The Valuation cf Business Investments 9 Effects of Excess Profits Taxes 1 0 Excess Profits Tax : A Wartime Measure 11 Excess Profits Taxes, 1933 o 1940 1 2 The World War and Postwar Pederal :Taxation 1 3 Wartime Taxes on Profits 14 LIST OF TABLE S National Defense Expenditures, Fiscal Years 1928-1941 15 Taxes, Not Income and Dividends of All Activ e Corporations in the United States 16 Effects of Tax Increases 1 7 Table Showing 7,899 Representative Corporations Classified According to Amount of Invested Capital and R :titio of Net Income to Invested Capital During tho Taxable Year 18 Excess-Profits Taxes of Twelve Coal Companies 19 BIBLIOGRAPHY :Bibliographer on Par Profits and Excoss Profits Taxos 20 1 .
    [Show full text]
  • The Background of the Revenue Act of 1937
    THE BACKGROUND OF THE REVENUE ACT OF 1937 RANDOLPzH E. PAUL* O N AUGUST 28, 1894, Congress enacted what was then considered a drastic income tax statute.' It carried a rate of 2%. The stat- ute was regarded by many with horror. Mr. Joseph H. Choate, then a leader of the New York bar, called the act "communistic in its pur- poses and tendencies," and confiscatory. 3 Words momentarily failed even Mr. Choate before the Supreme *Court, but he managed to label the prin- ciples upon which the tax was defended in that court as "communistic, socialistic-what shall I call them-populistic4 as ever have been ad- dressed to any political assembly in the world." s No attempt was made to circumvent this outrageous "direct" tax upon property. None was ever necessary. A direct frontal attack was made in the famous Pollock case and was successful by the recently noteworthy margin of five to four. Th6 decision, dose as it was, "forcibly interred"6 the contested statute and the nineteenth century had a peaceful ending. Taxpayers were safe until orderly constitutional process made the six- teenth Amendment effective on February 25, I913 Jand "direct" income taxation was possible without the impossible8 apportionment requirement. On this day the peace won by Mr. Choate proved merely a truce, and war was declared. In the beginning it was a quiet, good-natured conflictY It * Member of the New York bar. '28 Stat. 553 (1894), 31 U.S.C.A., § 372 (1929). 2 Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 532 (1895).
    [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]
  • Report No. 82-156 Gov Major Acts of Congress And
    REPORT NO. 82-156 GOV MAJOR ACTS OF CONGRESS AND TREATIES APPROVED BY THE SENATE 1789-1980 Christopher Dell Stephen W. Stathis Analysts in American National Governent Government Division September 1982 CONmGHnItNA^l JK 1000 B RE filmH C SE HVICA^^ ABSTRACT During the nearly two centuries since the framing of the Constitution, more than 41,000 public bills have been approved by Congress, submitted to the President for his approval and become law. The seven hundred or so acts summarized in this compilation represent the major acts approved by Congress in its efforts to determine national policies to be carried out by the executive branch, to authorize appropriations to carry out these policies, and to fulfill its responsibility of assuring that such actions are being carried out in accordance with congressional intent. Also included are those treaties considered to be of similar importance. An extensive index allows each entry in this work to be located with relative ease. The authors wish to credit Daphine Lee, Larry Nunley, and Lenora Pruitt for the secretarial production of this report. CONTENTS ABSTRACT.................................................................. 111 CONGRESSES: 1st (March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791)..................................... 3 2nd (October 24, 1791-March 2, 1793)................................... 7 3rd (December 2, 1793-March 3, 1795).................................. 8 4th (December 7, 1795-March 3, 1797).................................. 9 5th (May 15, 1797-March 3, 1799)....................................... 11 6th (December 2, 1799-March 3, 1801)................................... 13 7th (December 7, 1801-Marh 3, 1803)................................... 14 8th (October 17, 1803-March 3, 1805)....... ........................... 15 9th (December 2, 1805-March 3, 1807)................................... 16 10th (October 26, 1807-March 3, 1809)..................................
    [Show full text]
  • America's Economic Way Of
    |America’s Economic Way of War How did economic and financial factors determine how America waged war in the twentieth century? This important new book exposes the influence of economics and finance on the questions of whether the nation should go to war, how wars would be fought, how resources would be mobilized, and the long-term consequences for the American economy. Ranging from the Spanish–American War to the Gulf War, Hugh Rockoff explores the ways in which war can provide unique opportunities for understanding the basic principles of economics as wars produce immense changes in monetary and fiscal policy and so provide a wealth of infor- mation about how these policies actually work. He shows that wars have been more costly to the United States than most Americans realize as a substantial reliance on borrowing from the public, money creation, and other strategies to finance America’s war efforts have hidden the true cost of war. hugh rockoff is a professor of Economics at Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. His publications include numerous papers in professional journals, The Free Banking Era: A Re-examination (1975), Drastic Measures: A History of Wage and Price Controls in the United States (1984), and a textbook, History of the American Economy (2010, with Gary Walton). NEW APPROACHES TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL HISTORY series editors Nigel Goose, University of Hertfordshire Larry Neal, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign New Approaches to Economic and Social History is an important new textbook series published in association with the Economic History Society.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Mobility Behaviors Due to Earned Income Tax Credit Policy: a Case Study of a Southern California Population
    Pepperdine University Pepperdine Digital Commons Theses and Dissertations 2013 Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population Eugene J. Anton Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd Recommended Citation Anton, Eugene J., "Economic mobility behaviors due to earned income tax credit policy: a case study of a southern California population" (2013). Theses and Dissertations. 415. https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/etd/415 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by Pepperdine Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Pepperdine Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]. i Pepperdine University Graduate School of Education and Psychology ECONOMIC MOBILITY BEHAVIORS DUE TO EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT POLICY: A CASE STUDY OF A SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA POPULATION A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership by Eugene J. Anton November, 2013 Kent Rhodes, Ed.D. – Dissertation Chairperson ii This dissertation, written by Eugene J. Anton under the guidance of a Faculty Committee and approved by its members, has been submitted to and accepted by the Graduate Faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF EDUCATION Doctoral Committee: Kent Rhodes, Ed.D., Chairperson Leo Mallette, Ed.D. James Dellaneve, Ed.D. iii © Copyright by Eugene J. Anton (2013) All Rights Reserved iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iv LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents
    Table of Contents Preface ..................................................................................................... ix Introductory Notes to Tables ................................................................. xi Chapter A: Selected Economic Statistics ............................................... 1 A1. Resident Population of the United States ............................................................................3 A2. Resident Population by State ..............................................................................................4 A3. Number of Households in the United States .......................................................................6 A4. Total Population by Age Group............................................................................................7 A5. Total Population by Age Group, Percentages .......................................................................8 A6. Civilian Labor Force by Employment Status .......................................................................9 A7. Gross Domestic Product, Net National Product, and National Income ...................................................................................................10 A8. Gross Domestic Product by Component ..........................................................................11 A9. State Gross Domestic Product...........................................................................................12 A10. Selected Economic Measures, Rates of Change...............................................................14
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Definition of Tax Partnership
    Brooklyn Law School BrooklynWorks Faculty Scholarship Winter 2006 The edeF ral Definition of Tax Partnership Bradley T. Borden [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://brooklynworks.brooklaw.edu/faculty Part of the Other Law Commons, Taxation-Federal Commons, and the Tax Law Commons Recommended Citation 43 Hous. L. Rev. 925 (2006-2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by BrooklynWorks. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of BrooklynWorks. ARTICLE THE FEDERAL DEFINITION OF TAX PARTNERSHIP Bradley T. Borden* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODU CTION ...................................................................... 927 II. THE DEFINITIONS OF MULTIMEMBER TAx ENTITIES ............ 933 A. The EstablishedDefinitions .......................................... 933 B. The Open Definition: Tax Partnership......................... 936 III. HISTORY AND PURPOSE OF PARTNERSHIP TAXATION ............ 941 A. The Effort to Disregard................................................. 941 B. The Imposition of Tax Reporting Requirements ........... 943 C. The Statutory Definition of Tax Partnership............... 946 D. The 1954 Code: An Amalgam of the Entity and Aggregate Theories........................................................ 948 E. The Section 704(b) Allocation Rules and Assignment of Incom e ....................................................................... 951 F. The Anti-Abuse Rules .................................................... 956 * Associate Professor of Law, Washburn University School of Law, Topeka, Kansas; LL.M. and J.D., University of Florida Levin College of Law; M.B.A. and B.B.A., Idaho State University. I thank Steven A. Bank, Stanley L. Blend, Terrence F. Cuff, Steven Dean, Alex Glashausser, Christopher Hanna, Brant J. Hellwig, Dennis R. Honabach, Erik M. Jensen, L. Ali Khan, Martin J. McMahon, Jr., Stephen W. Mazza, William G. Merkel, Robert J. Rhee, William Rich, and Ira B.
    [Show full text]
  • An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951 Walter W
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1952 An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951 Walter W. Heller Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Heller, Walter W., "An Economist's Reflections on the Revenue Act of 1951" (1952). Minnesota Law Review. 2484. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/2484 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ECONOMIST'S REFLECTIONS ON THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951 WNTALTER W. HELLER* T HE ECONOMIST, no less than the legal practitioner, finds the individual income tax provisions the most interesting aspect of the Revenue Act of 1951. Therefore, after briefly reviewing the revenue impact of the Act as a whole, this commentary will focus mainly on the income tax provisions. It will try to appraise briefly the equity and economic rationality of Congress' action, especially in terms of the charge that Congress has pushed us to, or over, the brink of bearable taxation. Revenue Impact Seen in one light, the 1951 Act is the capstone of an heroic tax effort by which Congress in less than 18 months added $15 billion (at 1951 income levels) to the annual flow of federal tax revenues- all but $1 billion of that amount representing increases in taxes on individual and corporate incomes.
    [Show full text]