DOCSLIB.ORG

Tax Expenditure Report

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Government of the District of Columbia Muriel E. Bowser Mayor Jeffrey S. DeWitt Chief Financial Officer District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Produced by the Office of Revenue Analysis Issued September 2018 (this page intentionally left blank) District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Office of the Chief Financial Officer ________________________________________________________________________________________________ District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................ II INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................... III SUMMARY DATA ON DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TAX EXPENDITURES .... XII I. FEDERAL CONFORMITY TAX EXPENDITURES ............................................................................. XIII II. LOCAL TAX EXPENDITURES ....................................................................................................... XX III. LOCAL INDIVIDUAL TAX EXPENDITURES .................................................................................. XXXI PART I: FEDERAL CONFORMITY TAX EXPENDITURES ................................. 35 INCOME TAX ................................................................................................................ 36 EXCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 36 ADJUSTMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 134 DEDUCTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 144 SPECIAL RULES .............................................................................................................................. 188 PART II: LOCAL TAX EXPENDITURES ............................................................... 195 INCOME TAX .................................................................................................................................... 196 REAL PROPERTY TAX .................................................................................................................... 251 DEED RECORDATION AND TRANSFER TAX ................................................................................ 293 SALES TAX ....................................................................................................................................... 312 GROSS RECEIPTS TAX ................................................................................................................... 332 INSURANCE PREMIUMS TAX ......................................................................................................... 334 PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX .......................................................................................................... 337 LOCAL TAX EXPENDITURES (unknown if used) ............................................................................. 345 UNUSED LOCAL TAX EXPENDITURES (not taken) ........................................................................ 348 UNUSED LOCAL TAX EXPENDITURES (implementing regulations not yet written) ....................... 360 District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Page i Office of the Chief Financial Officer ________________________________________________________________________________________________ District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Acknowledgements This report is a product of the District of Columbia Office of Revenue Analysis (ORA). Charlotte Otabor and Lori Metcalf, ORA fiscal analysts, researched all the tax expenditures, drafted the report, and estimated the federal conformity tax expenditures. In addition, the following ORA staff members estimated the forgone revenues from local tax expenditures: Norton Francis, the director of revenue estimation; Betty Alleyne, fiscal analyst; Peter Johansson, fiscal analyst; Robert Zuraski, fiscal analyst; and Sharain Ward, fiscal analyst. I also thank the individuals from other D.C. government agencies who provided important information on many local tax expenditure provisions. Jeffrey S. DeWitt Chief Financial Officer District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Page ii Office of the Chief Financial Officer ________________________________________________________________________________________________ Introduction D.C. Law 13-161, the “Tax Expenditure Budget Review Act of 2000,”1 requires the Chief Financial Officer to prepare a biennial tax expenditure budget that estimates the revenue loss to the District government resulting from tax expenditures during the current fiscal year and the next two fiscal years. The law defines “tax expenditures” as “the revenue losses attributable to provisions of federal law and the laws of the District of Columbia that allow, in whole or in part, a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from taxes … or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.”2 The Chief Financial Officer prepared the first required tax expenditure budget as part of the proposed fiscal year 2003 budget. This report, which estimates the revenue forgone due to tax expenditures in fiscal years 2018 through 2021,3 covers more than 250 separate tax expenditure provisions. Several tax expenditures were also removed since the previous tax expenditure report, because they are no longer applicable. Additionally, this tax expenditure budget expands on the summary data of the District’s tax expenditures in prior versions to include a section on individual tax provisions, which are granted to specific firms, and organizations. Presenting these individual tax provisions, in addition to the categorical tax provisions reported in the past, provides a more comprehensive view of the District’s tax system. Understanding Tax Expenditures Tax expenditures are often described as “spending by another name,” or “disguised spending.” Policymakers use tax abatements, credits, deductions, deferrals, exemptions, and exclusions to promote a wide range of policy goals in education, human services, public safety, economic development, environmental protection, and other areas. Instead of pursuing these objectives through direct spending, policymakers reduce the tax liability associated with certain actions (such as hiring new employees) or conditions (such as being blind or elderly) so that individuals or businesses can keep and spend the money, often for some purpose. Unlike tax expenditures, direct spending programs usually receive an annual appropriation and the proposed funding levels are reviewed during the annual budget cycle tax expenditures, on the other hand, remain in place unless policymakers act to modify or repeal them; in this respect, they are like entitlement programs. Also, direct spending programs are itemized on the expenditure side of the budget, whereas revenues are shown in the budget as aggregate receipts without an itemization of tax expenditures. For example, a program to expand access to higher education could offer tax deductions for college savings instead of increasing student loans or grants. Regardless of which approach the government uses, there is a real resource cost in terms of forgone revenue or direct expenditures. There are two types of tax expenditures: (1) federal conformity tax expenditures, which apply U.S. Internal Revenue Code provisions to the D.C. personal and corporate income taxes, and (2) local tax expenditures authorized only by D.C. law. By conforming to the federal definition of adjusted gross income (with several exceptions), the District adopts most of the exclusions and deductions 1 D.C. Law 13-161 took effect on October 4, 2000 and is codified in § 47-318 and § 47-318.01 of the D.C. Official Code. 2 See D.C. Official Code § 47-318(6). 3 Although the law requires the tax expenditure budget to estimate the revenue loss for the current fiscal year and the subsequent two fiscal years, this report covers the current year and the subsequent three fiscal years. See D.C. Official Code § 47-392.01(b). District of Columbia Tax Expenditure Report Page iii Office of the Chief Financial Officer ________________________________________________________________________________________________ from income that are part of the federal personal and corporate income tax systems. Most states with an income tax use federal adjusted gross income as the basis for their income tax. An example of the federal conformity tax expenditure is the home mortgage interest deduction: The District follows the federal practice of allowing taxpayers to deduct home mortgage interest payments. In addition to the 107 federal conformity provisions covered in this report,4 there are 169 tax expenditures established by local law. An example of a local tax expenditure is the homestead deduction, which allows all D.C. taxpayers who live in their own home to deduct a certain amount ($73,350 at the time of this writing) from the taxable value of the home. Both federal conformity and local tax expenditures warrant regular scrutiny to make sure they are effective, efficient, and equitable, and to highlight the tradeoffs between tax expenditures and other programs. The District took a major step in scrutinizing local tax expenditures with the passage of D.C. Law 20-155, which requires the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) to review
Recommended publications
  • The New 39% Tax Rate: What Happens Now?

    The New 39% Tax Rate: What Happens Now?

    Tax Tips Alert | 3 December 2020 The new 39% tax rate: what happens now? On Wednesday afternoon, the Government introduced a new tax bill to Parliament under urgency, which proposes a 39% tax rate on individual income over $180,000. Given Labour’s majority in Parliament, the bill is almost With the new income tax rate, many other changes guaranteed to be passed and will be effective for the need to be made to tax legislation. This will ensure start of the 2022 income tax year. the new rate does not create distortions across the taxation of other types of personal income. The other This new rate could form part of New Zealand’s rate changes are to the: progressive tax system for years to come as the Government navigates an economic recovery, • Fringe benefit tax: The rate on amounts of commitments to public services, and budgets to service all inclusive pay over $129,681 will be 63.93% the forecast growth in Government debt. The last top to ensure consistent treatment of cash and marginal rate change was on 1 October 2010, when the non‑cash remuneration. This threshold differs from Government reduced the rate from 38% on income over the income tax threshold because it is calculated $70,000 to 33%, where it has remained since. on the after‑tax value of non‑monetary benefit i.e. taking into account PAYE which would otherwise The 2010 change harmonised the top personal rate have been paid. with the trustee rate. As those rates once again diverge, we expect to see more housekeeping and restructuring • Employer’s superannuation contribution tax and activity in advance of 1 April 2021.
  • The Changing Distribution of Federal Taxes: 1975-1990

    The Changing Distribution of Federal Taxes: 1975-1990

    The Changing Distribution of Federal Taxes: 1975-1990 CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE U.& CONGRESS WASHINGTON, OC. 20515 ERRATA The Changing Distribution of Federal Taxes: 1975 -1990 October 1987 The attached five pages represent corrections to details in the ref- erenced published CBO report. Readers may wish to detach the sheets and insert them at the appropriate places in the bound report. at page 42 Figure 5. Effective Federal Tax Rates by Population Decile (All taxes combined) Corporate Taxes Allocated Corporate Taxes Allocated to Capital Income to Labor Income 40 1977 Tax Law 1984 Tax Law 1988 Tax Law •? 30 1 !- i £ 10 i I 1234567 8 g 10 * - 123456789 10* Population Daciles H- *— Population Diciles *- SOURCE: Congressional Budget Office tax simulation models. NOTE: Families are ranked by the size of family income. Because family income includes the family's share of the corporate income tax, the ordering of families depends on the allocation of corporate taxes The lowest decile excludes families with zero or negative incomes. The effective tax rate is the ratio of taxes to family income in each income class. CHAPTER VI THE EFFECT OF TAX LAW CHANGES 59 TABLE 11. EFFECTIVE FEDERAL TAX RATES, BY POPULATION DECILE, WITH CONSTANT 1988 INCOMES: CORPORATE INCOME TAX ALLOCATED TO CAPITAL INCOME Individual Social Corporate Income Insurance Income Excise All Decile a/ Tax Taxes Tax Taxes Taxes Income-Indexed 1977 Tax Law First b/ -0.6 3.9 1.1 3.8 8.2 Second -0.7 4.6 1.1 3.6 8.7 Third 1.5 6.8 1.3 2.2 11.8 Fourth 3.9 7.4 1.6 2.1 14.9 Fifth 5.8 7.7
  • Real Property Like-Kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue

    Real Property Like-Kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue

    Real Property Like-kind Exchanges Since 1921, the Internal Revenue Code has recognized that the exchange of one property held for investment or business use for another property of a like-kind results in no change in the economic position of the taxpayer and therefore should not result in the imposition of tax. This concept is codified today in section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code with respect to the exchange of real and personal property, and it is one of many nonrecognition provisions in the Code that provide for deferral of gains. The Obama Administration’s fiscal year 2015 budget targets section 1031 by substantially repealing the provision with respect to real property by limiting the amount of gain that may be deferred to $1 million annually. This proposal could have a significant negative impact on the real estate sector with real implications for the broader economy. Background The original like-kind exchange rule goes all the way back to the Revenue Act of 1921 when Congress created section 202(c), which allowed investors to exchange securities and property that did not have a “readily realized market value.” This rather broad rule was eliminated in 1924 and replaced with section 112(b) in the Revenue Act of 1928, which permitted the deferral of gain on the like-kind exchange of similar property. With limited exceptions, generally related to narrowing the provision, Congress has largely left the like-kind rule unchanged since 1928.1 Section 1031 permits taxpayers to exchange assets used for investment or business purposes for other like-kind assets without the recognition of gain.
  • Legal Status of Capital Gains

    Legal Status of Capital Gains

    LEGAL STATUS OF CAPITAL GAINS PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON INTERNAL REVENUE TAXATION DECEMBER 4, 1959 UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 48572 WASHINGTON : 1959 J0810-59 LEGAL STATUS OF CAPITAL GAINS HISTORICAL PERIOD PRIOR TO THE 16TH AMENDMENT The power of the CQngress to subject capital gains to an income tax is now fully established by decisions of the Suprenle Court. Even in our first inconle tax statute (act of 1861, 12 Stat. 292) Congress used language broad enough to warrant the taxation of "annual cap­ ital gains." This first act levied on income tax to be paid upon the "annual income" deriyecl fronl certain sources, including income "deriyed from an:r kind of property" and contained a catchall provi­ sion s,,~eeping in "income derived fronl any other source whatever" with certain exceptions having no relation to capital gains. This act was neYer put into effect and was superseded by- the act of 1862 (12 Stat. 432), ,,~hich was similar in this respect to the 1861 act except that the basis of the tax was changed fronl "annual income" to the longer nhrase "annual gains, profits, or income." It \vas not until the act of 1864 (13 Stat. 223) that income derived fronl sales of prop­ erty was specifically mentioned. This last act contained the same general definition of income referred to in the prior acts, with an additional proviso- that net profits realized by sales of real estate purchased within the year for which income is estimated, shall be chargeable as income; and losses on sales of real estate purchased within the year for which income is estimated, shall be deducted from the income of such year.
  • Table of Contents

    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
  • Principles and Policy: a Guide to California's Tax System

    Principles and Policy: a Guide to California's Tax System

    SPECIAL REPORT IN PRINCIPLES AND POLICY: A GUIDE TO CALIFORNIA’S TAX SYSTEM April 2013 A Publication of the California Budget Project California Budget Project This report was initially written by former executive director Jean Ross and was updated by Alissa Anderson and Samar Lichtenstein. The CBP was founded in 1994 to provide Californians with a source of timely, objective, and accessible expertise on state fi scal and economic policy issues. The CBP engages in independent fi scal and policy analysis and public education with the goal of improving the economic and social well-being of low- and middle-income Californians. Support for the CBP comes from foundation grants, subscriptions, and individual contributions. Please visit the CBP’s website at www.cbp.org. California Budget Project 1107 9th Street, Suite 310 Sacramento, CA 95814 P: (916) 444-0500 F: (916) 444-0172 [email protected] www.cbp.org Table of Contents Introduction: Why We Should Care 3 What Should a Good Tax System Do? 3 The Personal Income Tax 11 The Sales and Use Tax 13 The Corporate Income Tax 15 Other State Taxes 18 Tax Administration: Why It Matters 23 Constitutional and Voter-Enacted Constraints on Tax Policymaking 24 Conclusion: Issues and Options for Reform 24 Endnotes 26 Most simply, taxes are the way governments raise the revenues necessary to support public services. While INTRODUCTION: WHY WE there is little disagreement over the purpose of state and local taxes, there is considerable controversy over what SHOULD CARE constitutes an appropriate level of taxation and how state tax systems ought to be structured.
  • DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Top Incomes in Germany, 1871-2014

    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES Top Incomes in Germany, 1871-2014

    DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 11838 Top Incomes in Germany, 1871-2014 Charlotte Bartels SEPTEMBER 2018 DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES IZA DP No. 11838 Top Incomes in Germany, 1871-2014 Charlotte Bartels DIW Berlin, UCFS and IZA SEPTEMBER 2018 Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA Guiding Principles of Research Integrity. The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society. IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author. IZA – Institute of Labor Economics Schaumburg-Lippe-Straße 5–9 Phone: +49-228-3894-0 53113 Bonn, Germany Email: [email protected] www.iza.org IZA DP No. 11838 SEPTEMBER 2018 ABSTRACT Top Incomes in Germany, 1871-2014* This study provides new evidence on top income shares in Germany from the period of industrialization to the present. Income concentration was high in the nineteenth century, dropped sharply after World War I and during the hyperinflation years of the 1920s, and increased rapidly throughout the Nazi period beginning in the 1930s.
  • The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C

    The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C

    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1952 The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes John C. O'Byrne Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation O'Byrne, John C., "The Revenue Act of 1951: Its Impact on Individual Income Taxes" (1952). Minnesota Law Review. 1632. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/1632 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]. THE REVENUE ACT OF 1951: ITS IMPACT ON INDIVIDUAL INCOME TAXES JOHN C. O'BYRNE* T HE Revenue Act of 1951 is a phantasmagoria of taxes, sections, ideas, philosophies, benefits and loopholes. Well over a hundred different tax matters are touched specifically; the indirect results are incalculable. Income, excess profits, estate, gift and excise taxes -all received the attention of Congress in greater or lesser measure, plus a few nonclassifiable items charged to miscellaneous. The scope of the Act is appalling. Many of its provisions received wide publicity, inter alia the rate increase,' the removal of the tax free aspect of the President's expense account,2 the tax on bookies and wagers,3 the lowered admission taxes on cut-price ladies' day tickets, 4 the "television formula,"5 sale of a residence, 6 and capital gains on livestock.7 Other provisions raised little hue and cry, few huzzabs, yet in limited areas they are of immense importance to particular taxpayers.
  • International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    International Tax Policy for the 21St Century

    NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 147 The NFTC Foreign Income Project: International Tax Policy for the 21st Century Part Two Relief of International Double Taxation NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 148 NFTC1a Volume1_part2Chap1-5.qxd 12/17/01 4:23 PM Page 149 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit Chapter 1 Origins of the Foreign Tax Credit I. Introduction The United States’ current system for taxing international income was creat- ed during the period from 1918 through 1928.1 From the introduction of 149 the income tax (in 1913 for individuals and in 1909 for corporations) until 1918, foreign taxes were deducted in the same way as any other business expense.2 In 1918, the United States enacted the foreign tax credit,3 a unilat- eral step taken fundamentally to redress the unfairness of “double taxation” of foreign-source income. By way of contrast, until the 1940s, the United Kingdom allowed a credit only for foreign taxes paid within the British 1 For further description and analysis of this formative period of U.S. international income tax policy, see Michael J. Graetz & Michael M. O’Hear, The ‘Original Intent’ of U.S. International Taxation, 46 DUKE L.J. 1021, 1026 (1997) [hereinafter “Graetz & O’Hear”]. The material in this chapter is largely taken from this source. 2 The reasoning behind the international tax aspects of the 1913 Act is difficult to discern from the historical sources. One scholar has concluded “it is quite likely that Congress gave little or no thought to the effect of the Revenue Act of 1913 on the foreign income of U.S.
  • Report of the Tax Fairness Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts March 1, 2014

    Report of the Tax Fairness Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts March 1, 2014

    Report of the Tax Fairness Commission Commonwealth of Massachusetts March 1, 2014 I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Introduction The Tax Fairness Commission was established by the Massachusetts Legislature in 2013 as part of the Act Relative to Transportation Finance. The Commission was charged with analyzing a broad array of the Commonwealth’s tax laws and focused on the equity of current tax policies. The fifteen member bipartisan Commission met publicly eight times from September 2013 until February 2014. The Commission reviewed data and analysis prepared by the Department of Revenue, the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the Joint Committee on Revenue, Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center, the Massachusetts Taxpayers Foundation, the Pioneer Institute, and others. After fully engaging in a broad, comprehensive, and lively debate, the Commission now issues this report. Finding The Commission concluded the following: That the overall tax system in Massachusetts is regressive, meaning middle- and low- income taxpayers pay a larger share of their income in taxes than high-income taxpayers. Recommendations The Commission voted on a number of proposals that strive to make the overall tax system fairer in Massachusetts. By majority vote, the Commission recommends the following: • Institute a graduated income tax through a Constitutional amendment. • Institute the following package proposal: o Increase the state funded match of the federal EITC from its current 15% rate and retain its refundability. o Expand the property tax circuit breaker, which is currently limited to senior citizens, to make all low-income individuals and families eligible. o Raise the current personal exemption on single filers, heads of households, and married filing jointly.
  • The Revenue Act of 1934

    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.
  • Tax Policy and the Obligation to Support Children

    Tax Policy and the Obligation to Support Children

    Tax Policy and the Obligation to Support Children ALLAN J. SAMANSKY* This Article explores how the tax liability of parents should be affected by the obligation to support their children.' Children are certainly an economic burden; family resources that otherwise could be used to purchase goods satisfying the parents' needs must be used for support of the children. But, of course, children are much more than a burden. Parents hope and expect that their children will be a source of happiness and fulfillment. They want their values to be transmitted to their children, and perhaps their yearning for immortality can be realized, in part, through their children. Because children have a profound and multifaceted impact on their parents, issues involving tax consequences of children are complex and controversial. The Article first reviews the personal exemption, head of household status, and the earned income credit, which are provisions in current law granting tax benefits with respect to children. 2 The discussion illustrates that the tax benefits depend on the parents' marital status, income, and number of children and that the allocation of these benefits is frequently anomalous. In the second section the Article critically discusses the various approaches that have been suggested * Professor of Law, The Ohio State University College of Law. I am grateful for the comments of Professors Anne Alstott, James Brudney, Donna Byrne, Edward Foley and Robert Keller on an earlier draft of this Article and for the research assistance of Jacqueline Kirian and Jeffrey Wilson. A draft of this Article was presented at the Lewis and Clark Law School Forum on Taxation and the Family, and the participants also made many helpful comments.