Law School Loans, REPAYE, and Taxes [Updated]

By: Sam Brunson

Friday, the New York Times‘s DealBook section had an article about law school debt. (H/t Paul Caron.) It focused on John Acosta, a recent Valparaiso graduate who is starting a defense and family law practice.

Although he’s done well for himself so far—top third of his class, passed the Bar Exam on his first attempt, and successfully convinced a former prosecutor to join him—he has a significant problem: debt. From the article:

Yet in financial terms, there is almost no way for Mr. Acosta to climb out of the crater he dug for himself in law school, when he borrowed over $200,000. The government will eventually forgive the loan — in 25 years — if he’s unable to repay it, as is likely on his small-town lawyer’s salary. But the Internal Revenue Service will treat the forgiven amount as income, leaving him what could easily be a $70,000 tax bill on the eve of retirement, and possibly much higher. [Emphasis added]

Up to $70,000 in taxes, or maybe more? Could that be right? And, if so, what’s up with that? Continue reading “Law School Loans, REPAYE, and Taxes [Updated]” →

Minnesota Dogs Breathe (Woof) a Sigh of Relief: Pet Trusts Now Legal

By Diane Ring

Perhaps you heard a chorus of joyous barking across the state of Minnesota recently — now you know why. Until just over two weeks ago, every state in the U.S., plus Washington, D.C., recognized statutory pet trusts, except Minnesota. But on May 22, 2016, the Minnesota Governor signed legislation approving pet trusts. The legislation, which had been sponsored in the House by Rep. Dennis Smith and in the Senate by Sen. Scott Dibble, allows the creation of a legally enforceable trust that provides for the care of an animal that was alive during the grantor’s lifetime. The terms of the trust can be enforced by a person appointed in the trust, or if no one is appointed, the court may appoint someone. Moreover, anyone having an “interest in the welfare of the animal” may petition the court to appoint someone to enforce the trust or remove the person so designated in the trust document. The trust would terminate on the death of the last surviving animal (or 90 years if shorter). Any remaining proceeds would be distributed pursuant to the trust’s terms, or if the trust fails to specify, then to the “grantor’s heirs-at-law determined as if the grantor died intestate domiciled in [Minnesota] at the time of distribution.”

This all seems pretty straightforward, so why was Minnesota the last state? Continue reading “Minnesota Dogs Breathe (Woof) a Sigh of Relief: Pet Trusts Now Legal” →

Teaching Tax – At Home and Abroad

by Jennifer Bird-Pollan

I’ve just finished my sixth year of teaching tax at the University of Kentucky, which is longer than I’ve done any other professional task, but I still feel like I’m a beginner. I have started to develop strong classroom preferences (students may not use computers in my classes, I prefer lots of participation, and I prefer textbooks that elucidate concepts, rather than trying to hide the ball). But at the same time I have many more questions about the best way to do this work (what should I cover and leave out, given the time constraints? how can I encourage students to prepare seriously ahead of time, while still giving robust answers to student questions in class?). I am eager to hear from others, both my co-bloggers and visitors, what they think about these issues, and I plan to devote future blog posts to some of my thoughts about these questions. However, having just finished teaching “International Aspects of U.S. Tax Law” at the Vienna University of Economics and Business for the second time, I thought I’d focus here on some of the differences I have observed teaching U.S. income tax law abroad. Continue reading “Teaching Tax – At Home and Abroad” →

Tying the IRS’s Hands. Even Tighter

By Sam Brunson

Yesterday, the House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 2995 to the House of Representatives. H.R. 2995, the Financial Services and General Government Oversight Appropriations Bill for FY 2017, if passed, would continue the trend of reducing the IRS’s budget, this time by $236 million.

It is undoubtedly worth looking at what exactly the bill does, but I’m interested in an amendment added yesterday by Rep. John Culberson (R-TX). Section 135 of the bill would make it even harder than it already is for the IRS to audit churches. Continue reading “Tying the IRS’s Hands. Even Tighter” →

Uncle Sam as Danish Tax Collector

By: Diane Ring

Who says that real global tax cooperation is dead? During a very interesting conference on international tax held in Boston a couple of weeks ago, a recent U.S. tax case was discussed and caught my attention: Torben Dileng v. Commissioner (D.Ct. N. Ga., Jan. 15, 2016). In that case, a U.S. District Court ruled that the IRS could collect $2.5M of Danish taxes owed by a Danish citizen who was resident in the U.S.

IRS as Danish tax collector– what was this all about? Continue reading “Uncle Sam as Danish Tax Collector” →

Universal Basic Income “Arithmetic”

Benjamin M. Leff

Last week, Eduardo Porter wrote a column pointing out that there is some interest currently – both internationally and in the United States – in a “universal basic income” (or “UBI”). Under a UBI, the government provides each citizen with an annual cash payout of a certain amount. The idea appeals to thinkers on both the left and the right, for slightly different reasons. Porter argues that it’s a bad idea for a number of reasons, but he argues that “the first hurdle is arithmetic.” He then goes on to argue that the cost to provide a universal basic income of $10,000 each for 300 million American citizens would be $3 trillion (pretty simple math so far), and that is “nearly all the tax revenue collected by the federal government.” So, obviously, a nonstarter.

Daniel Hemel, a brand new assistant professor over at University of Chicago blogging at Whatever Source Derived, does a little “back-of-the envelope calculation,” in which he points out how silly Porter’s arithmetic is. It’s ridiculous to think of instituting a universal basic income without simultaneously changing the tax code. If the tax code stayed exactly the same, then a universal basic income would either be a tremendously expensive social program or a tremendous tax cut for everyone, depending on how you want to look at it. But Hemel points out that we wouldn’t keep the tax code exactly the same if we instituted a universal basic income. Instead, we could probably cut the personal exemption and the standard deduction. Who needs a zero tax rate if the first $10,000 you earn is a gift straight from the government? You also don’t need the earned income tax credit or child tax credit, since the universal basic income is basically a refundable credit available to everyone. Then, Hemel suggests cutting a bunch of other deductions to pay for the UBI, like the deduction for state and local taxes, the mortgage interest deduction, and some others, and he produces $1.119 trillion dollars of savings, which would fund a UBI of $3,450 per person. Not the $10,000 per person that would completely eliminate poverty for any family with children and almost completely eliminate poverty overall, but not a bad start.

But Hemel hasn’t gone far enough either, because he hasn’t considered a complete overhaul of the income tax. Continue reading “Universal Basic Income “Arithmetic”” →

Obamacare, ACOs, and Tax-Exemption

By: Philip Hackney door-349807_1280

Sometimes, well probably every time, when I teach about hospitals qualifying as tax-exempt charitable organizations I tell the joke from the movie Airplane that goes like this:

Rumack: You’d better tell the Captain we’ve got to land as soon as we can. This woman has to be gotten to a hospital.

Elaine Dickinson: A hospital? What is it?

Rumack: It’s a big building with patients, but that’s not important right now.

The point of this joke is an important one to me. It helps to illuminate the fact that the “promotion of health” as a charitable purpose is focused heavily on a space and an activity combined. Generally for the promotion of health to qualify as a charitable purpose there must be a physical building where doctors and nurses relieve the suffering of the afflicted. Not just any promotion of health suffices. Running a cheap pharmacy just does not cut it. Providing sperm to the women of your choice for free, even though it may effect health, simply does not cut it either (don’t ask, just read the opinion). What about health insurance? Generally, because of section 501(m) of the Code, health insurance does not qualify. However, health maintenance organizations (HMOs) that sell health services in exchange for a monthly fee that also own a building where they treat patients can qualify.

That brings us to a recent IRS denial of the application for charitable status of an organization operated as an “accountable care organization” (“ACO”), a creature of Obamacare. Continue reading “Obamacare, ACOs, and Tax-Exemption” →

Did John Oliver just give away some CODI income on Last Week Tonight?

By: Shu-Yi Oei

So John Oliver just forgave $15 million of debt on his talk show.

See video @ around 17:15.

Specifically, Oliver apparently set up a debt-buying company (CARP), which bought $15 million worth of incurred medical debt of nearly 9,000 people for $60,000, less than half a cent on the dollar. And then he forgave the $15 million of debt on television. The Washington Post reports that “this is the largest one-time giveaway ever on television, beating out Oprah Winfrey’s famous “you get a car! You get a car!” episode, which cost that show $8 million.” (Smart talk show economics, to top Oprah’s giveaway while only paying $60,000 for the debt.)

Of course, because tax professors love talking about the tax consequences of Oprah’s free car giveaway, I wondered whether this $15 million debt forgiveness event was going to result in cancellation of indebtedness income to some of the debtors whose debt was forgiven. As tax people know, IRC Section 61(a)(12) provides that income from the cancellation of indebtedness is includible in gross income. But IRC Section 108 provides that there is no gross income in certain circumstances–for example, if the debtor is in Title 11 bankruptcy, or is insolvent, or if the debt is certain types of real property related indebtedness.

Would CARP have to send these folks a Form 1099-C? And would some of them then have CODI income due to the debt forgiveness?

Continue reading “Did John Oliver just give away some CODI income on Last Week Tonight?” →

US Tax Scholarship in Comparative Perspective

By: Shu-Yi Oei

Does tax scholarship look different across different countries? If so, how? And why? In a recently posted paper on SSRN, Wolfgang Schön of the Max Planck Institute for Tax Law and Public Finance looks at these questions, focusing on a comparison of tax law scholarship in the United States and Germany. The abstract is here. Briefly, the paper delineates key distinctive features of US and German tax scholarship and analyzes the similarities and differences between the two. As someone who teaches at a law school with a strong international, comparative and civil law tradition, I found many aspects of this paper interesting and informative, and agreed with many of its arguments. I won’t go into all of them here, but two stood out as especially thought provoking.

First, Schön points out that in US tax scholarship (and in US legal scholarship in general), the “internal” approach to scholarship—that is, doctrinal analyses and interpretations of law—has largely been replaced by an “external” approach that analyzes jurisprudence and the impact of legal rules from an “outsider” (i.e., policy or interdisciplinary) perspective. German academics, by contrast, are more likely to adhere to an internal approach that focuses on systematizing, understanding, and categorizing legal doctrine. This observation doesn’t strike me as very controversial. What was intriguing, however, was Schön’s claim that this external turn is due, in part, to the fact that US academics have less influence over the direction and what he calls the “production” of the actual law than their German counterparts. Specifically, he argues that US judges are less likely and less obliged to consult academic writing in coming to decisions than judges in Germany. Thus, many US legal academics gravitate towards the “external” approach, rather than simply being content to make a limited (and likely ignored) doctrinal contribution. This sounds right to me, at least on the US side. (Anecdotally, I have heard more than one person point out that one’s academic and theoretical freedom is very much tied to the fact that one’s theories are irrelevant to pretty much everybody, and that this is the very thing that allows legal scholars to really push the theoretical and policy boundaries.)

Continue reading “US Tax Scholarship in Comparative Perspective” →

Oklahoma Decreases Working Poor Family Benefits

By Francine J. Lipman
OklahomaLRG This Sunday New York Times editorial caught my eye (and heart) this morning, because I have been researching and writing about state EITCs and lobbying legislators to consider enacting or increasing this demonstrably effective work incentive and antipoverty tool. When I first looked into the issue I was pleasantly surprised to discover that twenty-six states and the District of Columbia have EITCs that build on the antipoverty success of the federal EITC. Continue reading “Oklahoma Decreases Working Poor Family Benefits” →

Will New Data on the Volume of Sharing Economy Workers Prompt Tax Reform?

By: Diane Ring

Sharing economy and other platform workers are frequently classified as independent contractors and bear many of their own costs. Thus, these workers whom we don’t think of as “small businesses”—and don’t really think of themselves as small businesses—are thrust into the exciting world of quarterly reporting and calculation of proper deductions. Exciting if you are a tax lawyer, but less so if you are making limited income and are facing daunting tax compliance requirements. Despite these compliance challenges, there has not been much movement in responding to the tax challenges faced by sharing economy workers. These observations about the sharing economy sector have been around for a while; they were the focus of two forthcoming articles by my co-author, Shu-Yi Oei, and me (Can Sharing Be Taxed? and The Tax Lives of Uber Drivers: Evidence from Internet Discussion Forums).

Yesterday, a new report coming out of American University echoed our observations and findings. Caroline Bruckner of the Kogod Tax Policy Center presented testimony (and a supporting report) to Congress regarding the size and scope of worker participation in the sharing economy. Her goal was not to provide a definitive calculation nationwide of sharing and platform workers, but to offer a solid sense of the scale of participation in the sector (more than 2.5 million individuals) and note important growth trends. Based on the percentage of the American workforce active in the sharing/platform sector, she urged more government attention to reform that would address the tax compliance and administration challenges in this sector.

Will Congress and Treasury/IRS respond? Continue reading “Will New Data on the Volume of Sharing Economy Workers Prompt Tax Reform?” →

About last night …

“Ask not what your country can do for you, but ask what you can do for your country.” John F. Kennedy

We celebrated Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) in Las Vegas … and the numbers are impressive. Almost 200 volunteers spent 12,000 hours generating over $25 million in federal refunds that have and will continue to exponentially benefit our local communities and working families, including thousands of children. But for anyone who has served as a VITA volunteer, the personal rewards and deep fulfillment from helping others are priceless. If you are a tax professional looking for something more out of work-life-balance (or are curious about Woody Allen’s antihero advice and afterlife plan) … read more about encore tax opportunities here. Details about VITA programs and generous grant opportunities with fast-approaching deadlines (June 1) follow the fold …

Continue reading “About last night …” →

Trump Tax (Non) Disclosure

By David J. Herzig

Today, Paul Caron in his TaxProf Blog, highlighted an article by John McGinnis (a Constitutional Law Scholar at Northwestern). In the article, McGinnis states that Trump should not have to disclose his income tax returns. His premise is that the norm of tax return disclosure is “bad.” He believes that privacy norms should trump any right of the electorate to see a candidates taxes. I vehemently disagree with this normative position. I hesitate to write a “hot take” or half-baked reaction to the article. But there is dangerous precedent failing to highlight the error(s) in McGinnis’ position. (I am under the assumption that McGinnis had limited space to write his opinion and nuance he would normally make is lost to space constraints).

I, as well as others such as, Joe Thorndike, have previously made the point that tax return disclosure is very important. In my Forbes article, I made the point of a variety of reason tax return disclosure is very important. I said, “First, tax returns can be a window to understanding how someone truly thinks and behaves; what you do when you think the public isn’t looking, shows the more authentic self. (Hillary Clinton’s tax return is arguably less revealing, since she has long known her returns would be made public.) Trump’s tax filings might provide some additional insight into how he would run the country. Does he follow rules? Stake out very aggressive positions? Take unnecessary risks?” I think how people act in private is the best proxy for understanding what they think. With a candidate like Trump, this may be the only window into how a Trump presidency would look like.

McGinnis starts his discussion by making the first point in support of his thesis that Continue reading “Trump Tax (Non) Disclosure” →

Can EU-wide Corporate Consolidation Be Revived?

By: Diane Ring

On Tuesday, Shuyi mentioned the EU’s Common Consolidated Corporate Tax Base proposal (CCCTB) in her post, noting some interesting parallels between maritime/bankruptcy coordination and international tax efforts at coordination. This motivated me to take a look at the recent developments that have happened around the CCCTB proposal. The CCCTB would provide a single set of rules for calculating the income of businesses operating in the EU – and would allow for such businesses to file a single consolidated return for their EU activities. The group’s income would then be allocated across the member states. Under this scheme, individual EU member states would still be able to tax their portion of the group’s income at their own country-specific tax rate. But I was curious–the CCCTB proposal is not new; it has been around for more than a decade. What has been happening on this stalled cooperation front? And, more importantly, will the EU’s announced re-launch of the proposal have a greater chance of success than previous attempts? Continue reading “Can EU-wide Corporate Consolidation Be Revived?” →

Trump Claims $557 Million in Income in 2015

By: David J. Herzig

Yesterday, Donald Trump filed his personal financial disclosure with the Federal Election Commission. This updated his initial financial disclosures. On his web site he claimed the disclosures were “the largest in the history of the FEC.” Unfortunately, he did not file his disclosures on-line like Hillary Clinton. Alas, we will have to wait a little bit to get to the details.

Nonetheless, according to Mr. Trump’s website he made $557 million in income in 2015. That number does not include “dividends, interest, capital gains, rents and royalties.” So, his real income should be substantially higher.

I have been writing about why a disclosure of Mr. Trump’s tax returns are necessary (at Forbes and the Wall Street Journal). Once I have a copy of the disclosures, I will give some updates (hopefully shortly) about various items that raise some red flags. From what I gather in innuendo and rumor about his disclosure, the calls for full disclosure of his tax returns to sort out facts from fiction will continue to gain steam.

The key reason the tax returns are needed is to permit a thoughtful discussion (hopefully more global tax policy discussions) between the relationship between his over $557 million in gross income and his taxable income.

[QUICK UPDATE: I was amazed how ABC, NBC, FOX, CBS, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times all seemed to know what was in the not yet public disclosure. The rule according to the FEC is that the return is not public until they have approved it. However, despite the non-public disclosure, the FEC has apparently sent the disclosure out to certain news sources. It is amazing how a governmental agency can partake in such mishegoss!]

[UPDATE 7:45 pm] The Wall Street Journal put up Trump’s FEC disclosure. Available at: http://www.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/TrumpdisclosureMay2016.pdf?mod=e2twp