By: David J. Herzig
Today President Trump’s top tax advisors laid out the first details of the his tax plan. Chief economic adviser Gary Cohn and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin unveiled the plan which according to Fox News, Cohn called “the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986, and one of the biggest tax cuts in American history.”
Oh, did I mention that the details of the biggest cuts were printed on a single sheet of paper?
There has been plenty of ink (and jokes) already spilled about the plan. For example, you can read Richard Rubin of the WSJ (here) or Alan Rappeport of the NY Times (here). The long and the short of the plan is it seems to very very costly. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget guesses it could cost $3 to $7 trillion with their estimate at $5.5 trillion. That is a lot of money!
Continue reading “We Should be Taking President Trump’s Tax Plan Seriously”
By: David Herzig
Yesterday on Twitter, Scott Greenberg (@ScottElliotG) posted the following tweet from Matt Bruenig.
Well, David Gamage, Omri Marian, Andy Grewal and I had fun in 120 characters debating the quality of the tax advice provided on both the receipt and the note. Suffice to say: (A) this will be appearing on a number of basic income tax exams shortly; and, (B) neither piece of advice provided by “Mr. Libertarian” seems to be correct. Both David and I pointed out that the “tip” did not seem to meet the old Duberstein detached and disinterested test. Clearly there was a quid-pro-quo; don’t spit on my food and I will give you extra money in addition to the bill.
Joking around about the gift/income distinction made me think that tipping is very tax inefficient. Assuming that what I said is true: tips are not gifts and they are income to the recipient. This means that the payment is not deductible by the payor (just personal consumption) yet income to the recipient, i.e. the server. If it is ordinary income to the recipient, then there should be a corresponding wage deduction, right?
Let’s assume the following counterfactual. The restaurant includes the tip as part of the bill. The restaurant pays the employee salary including the entire tip. Under this structure, the restaurant would receive an entire wage adjustment for the tip paid. The customer is still does not receive a deduction for paying the employee’s wages and the employee still pays the same amount of income tax. But the employer captures the unused deduction for wages by the customer. Theoretically, this deduction could be shared by all the stakeholders to reduce costs to all parties.
Who cares? Well, only economists and tax professors, probably. Back to finals preparation!
 Here is David Gamage’s hypo: customer leaves $1K and says, I just won the lottery and want to share some of my winnings as a “gift”.
By: Diane Ring
This month marks the one-year anniversary of the Panama Papers leak. In April 2016, the ICIJ announced the leak and a few weeks later (May 9, 2016) released a database that included a subset of the leaked data. The leak itself comprised over 11 million records spanning 40 years from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca. At its core, the leak revealed the true ownership of over 200,000 offshore entities, thereby raising a host of tax and political questions regarding many of the entities’ owners.
So what has happened over the past year as a result of the leak? Continue reading “Panama Papers: The One-Year Anniversary”
Photo: Jarrad Henderson, USA TODAY
By: Daniel Hemel and David Herzig
[Note: This post is co-authored with Daniel Hemel, Assistant Professor of Law at The University of Chicago School of Law.]
The strategic case against a Democratic filibuster of Neil Gorsuch is straightforward. The argument is not that the filibuster will prevent President Trump from putting someone like Andrew Napolitano on the Court. The argument is that the filibuster may prevent President Trump from filling a future vacancy with a well-credentialed conservative who is ideologically similar to or right of Judge Gorsuch. To elaborate:
— (a) The filibuster accomplishes no work when there are fewer than 50 Senators who will support a nominee on an up-or-down vote. (Napolitano presumably falls into this category.)
— (b) The filibuster also does no work when there are 50 or more Senators who will support a nominee even if that means going nuclear. (Judge Gorsuch appears to fall into this category.)
— (c) The filibuster matters when (1) there is a nominee who would win 50 or more Senators on an up-or-down vote, but (2) fewer than 50 Senators would support the nuclear option in order to put the nominee on the Court.
Is (c) an empty set?
Continue reading “The Strategic Case Against the Democratic Filibuster of Neil Gorsuch”
My pal Ann Lipton–corporate governance and securities law expert and blogger extraordinaire over at BLPB–is organizing a conference at Tulane Law School today on the topic of “Navigating Federalism in Corporate and Securities Law.” It looked so interesting that I had to leave Henry Ordower and Kerry Ryan’s fabulous Critical Issues in Comparative and International Taxation: Taxation and Migration Conference a day early to crash her party! I’ve been auditing Securities Regulation and very much feeling like a little duckling in the securities/corporate world all semester, so I’m really looking forward to sitting in on an unfamiliar conversation. I always find that “cross-training” in other fields gives me fresh perspectives on my own work.
Here is the schedule. Some of these papers are really interesting!
The Problem of Large Shareholders
(Discussant: Urska Velikonja)
The Problem of Small Shareholders
(Discussant: Ann Lipton)
- Jill Fisch (Penn), Advance Voting Instructions: Tapping the Voice of the Excluded Retail Investor
- J.W. Verret (George Mason), Uber-ized Corporate Law
What Can States Regulate?
(Discussant: Jill Fisch)
- Kent Greenfield (Boston College), Corporate Power and Campaign Finance
- Summer Kim (Irvine), Corporate Long Arms
The Line Between Corporate Law and Securities Law
(Discussant: James Cox)
- Ann Lipton (Tulane), Reviving Reliance
- James Park (UCLA), Delaware and Santa Fe
- Robert Thompson (Georgetown), Delaware’s Dominance: A Peculiar Illustration of American Federalism
The Operation of the SEC
(Discussant: James Park)
- James Cox (Duke), Revolving Elites: Assessing Capture in the SEC
- Urska Velikonja (Emory), Admissions in Public Enforcement
By: Diane Ring
Today St. Louis University School of Law hosted the Sanford E. Sarasohn Conference on Critical Issues in Comparative International Taxation II: Taxation and Migration. This event offered a much needed forum to explore the intersection between international tax law and questions of migration and refugees. Topics addressed included using the tax system to remedy migration challenges (see, for example, Matthew Lister, “A Tax-Credit Approach to Addressing Brain-Drain” suggesting a tax transfer from jurisdictions on the receiving end of a brain drain to the countries losing skilled labor; and see Cristina Trenta, “Migrants and Refugees: An EU Perspective on Upholding Human Rights Through Taxation and Public Finance” advocating an EU-wide tax to finance members’ commitments to refugee human rights). Other papers considered the burdens that tax-induced migration creates for the society the migrant leaves and for some members of the jurisdiction the migrant joins (see, for example, Allison Christians, “Buying In: Citizenship and Residence by Investment”). The full set of 15 conference papers will be published in the St. Louis University Law Journal and will provide a valuable resource on the breadth of taxation and migration questions.
Here’s another call for papers:
Please plan ahead for the 18th Global Conference on Environmental Taxation! The deadline for submitting abstracts in response to the Call for Papers is May 1, 2017 and early submissions are welcome. For information about the conference and the Call for Papers, click here.
This year the conference’s focus is: Innovation Addressing Climate Change Challenges: Local and Global Perspectives
We are in a pivotal and defining time for global discourse on public/private sector response at all levels of government (national, state, indigenous, provincial, municipal, city, and local), to the impacts of climate change. And, GCET18 is well-positioned in its role as the leading global forum for innovative exchanges on principles, practices, and policies with respect to environmental taxation and market-based instruments.
The conference will explore various topics :
- Climate change policy, biodiversity protection, environmental stewardship, pollution control, water conservation, land degradation, renewable energy, mining and rehabilitation
- Market instruments such as carbon pricing, emissions trading schemes, other environmental taxes, subsidies, direct action or spending programs and tax concessions both positive and perverse.
Selected papers from the Global Conferences are published in Critical Issues in Environmental Taxation.
The conference this year will be hosted by the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law, and the Conference Chair is Mona Hymel. If you have questions, please contact her at email@example.com.
We hope to see you in Tucson!
Prof. Janet E. Milne
Director, Environmental Tax Policy Institute
Co-editor, Handbook of Research on Environmental Taxation
Vermont Law School, USA
By David J. Herzig
By David Herzig
I am trying to keep this updated quarterly. So, please find the most updated list. There are a number of new names on the updated list as tax professors continue to enter the twitterverse. I did update the list to be in alphabetical order. As always, if I am missing someone, please let me know.
Starting with the SurlySubgroup (@surlysubgroup)
Jennifer Bird-Pollan (@jbirdpollan)
Sam Brunson (@smbrnsn)
Phil Hackney (@EOTaxProf)
David Herzig (@professortax)
Stephanie Hoffer (@Profhoffer)
Leandra Lederman (@leandra2848)
Ben Leff (@benmosesleff)
Francine Lipman (@Narfnampil)
Diane Ring (@ringdi_dr)
Shu-Yi Oei (@shuyioei)
Other United States/Canadian Tax Professor (in alphabetical order):
Continue reading “Tax Professors on Twitter”
By David Gamage
On Monday, the House Republicans finally revealed their draft bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act (#Obamacare or #ACA). The bill is titled the American Health Care Act, and commentators have been referring to it as either the #AHCA or #Trumpcare.
To assess the bill, it is helpful to think of it as consisting of four primary buckets:
- ending many of Obamacare’s tax provisions (read: large tax cuts for the very wealthy);
- phased-in cuts to Medicaid funding and scheduled devolution of Medicaid to the states (read: eroding the health safety-net program for the poor);
- transforming Obamacare’s other major health subsidies from being based mostly on income and health costs to being based more on age (read: the implications of this are actually less straightforward than what much of the commentary suggests, but that is a topic for another day); and
- other changes to Obamacare’s insurance market regulations (the subject of today’s blog post).
In this blog post, I will focus on the fourth bucket—the changes to Obamacare’s insurance market reforms other than the changes to the subsidies. Time permitting, I hope to write future blog posts on some of the other buckets.
What is most striking about the AHCA’s insurance market changes is how they keep the vast majority of Obamacare’s reforms in place. Right-wing groups have thus taken to calling the AHCA “#ObamacareLite”. Yet I consider this a misnomer. A more accurate label would be #ObamacareCrippled.
The AHCA’s changes do not really water down Obamacare, as the intended slur of “ObamacareLite” implies. Rather, the AHCA’s changes would likely cause Obamacare‘s framework for regulating the individual market to fall apart. If the AHCA bill were to be enacted in its current form, the result would likely be adverse-selection death spirals. The only real hope for saving the individual market would be for state governments to step up with new state-level regulations for supporting insurance markets within each state.
Continue reading “The Insurance Market Regulations in the Republicans’ Health Care Bill: Crippling Obamacare, or Passing a Hot Potato to State Governments?”
By Sam Brunson
Yesterday, driving my son to swim lessons, I flipped my radio to WDCB, Chicagoland’s jazz radio station. An organ trio was playing something that sounded vaguely familiar. And then they returned to the melody, and it was the Beatles’s “Taxman.” And just like that, two of my favorite things—jazz and taxes—intersected.
Several months ago, Leandra did a great post on the history and context of “Taxman.” And her post yesterday on taxes in a series of novels got me thinking about how often tax shows up in jazz. When I posted about the musical tax canon, I mentioned Fats Waller’s “We the People,” but here, I specifically wanted to look for jazz covers of “Taxman.” And I found two: Continue reading “The Taxman and Jazz Radio”