The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character

Ellen P. Aprill
{"title":"The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character","authors":"Ellen P. Aprill","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2020.110","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper considers section 4941, the private foundation excise tax on self-dealing, on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Part I gives background on section 4941. Part II compares the rules of section 4941 to the parallel ones applicable to public charities, including the special rules for supporting organizations and donor advised funds. The fiftieth anniversary of the private foundation excises taxes is also an appropriate time to confront two foundational questions, and Part III does so. It first asks whether we can view the private foundation taxes in general and section 4941 in particular as constitutional exercises of Congress’s taxing power under the tests announced in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius. Second, it considers whether we should characterize the section 4941 excise tax as a Pigouvian tax – a hot category among economists but less familiar to lawyers. It answers “maybe not” to the first and “yes but” to the second. \n \nInconsistent Congressional treatment of self-dealing by section 501(c)(3) organizations and the low level of enforcement lead me to question the effectiveness of our current self-dealing rules. Thus, this examination concludes by suggesting a number of possible changes to the excise taxes applicable to tax-exempt organizations. The conclusion not only considers in detail a relatively small but potentially significant change – expanding abatement rules for first-tier excise taxes to section 4941, but also endorses a large one – the suggestion that approaches outside of the Internal Revenue Service be considered for regulating the charitable sector.","PeriodicalId":135383,"journal":{"name":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","volume":"75 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nonprofit & Philanthropy Law eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2020.110","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This paper considers section 4941, the private foundation excise tax on self-dealing, on the occasion of its fiftieth anniversary. Part I gives background on section 4941. Part II compares the rules of section 4941 to the parallel ones applicable to public charities, including the special rules for supporting organizations and donor advised funds. The fiftieth anniversary of the private foundation excises taxes is also an appropriate time to confront two foundational questions, and Part III does so. It first asks whether we can view the private foundation taxes in general and section 4941 in particular as constitutional exercises of Congress’s taxing power under the tests announced in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sibelius. Second, it considers whether we should characterize the section 4941 excise tax as a Pigouvian tax – a hot category among economists but less familiar to lawyers. It answers “maybe not” to the first and “yes but” to the second. Inconsistent Congressional treatment of self-dealing by section 501(c)(3) organizations and the low level of enforcement lead me to question the effectiveness of our current self-dealing rules. Thus, this examination concludes by suggesting a number of possible changes to the excise taxes applicable to tax-exempt organizations. The conclusion not only considers in detail a relatively small but potentially significant change – expanding abatement rules for first-tier excise taxes to section 4941, but also endorses a large one – the suggestion that approaches outside of the Internal Revenue Service be considered for regulating the charitable sector.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私人基金会对自我交易的消费税:轮廓、比较和特征
本文考虑了第4941条,即私人基金会对自营交易的消费税,在其成立50周年之际。第一部分介绍第4941条的背景。第二部分将第4941条的规则与适用于公共慈善机构的平行规则进行比较,包括对支持组织和捐助者建议基金的特别规则。在私人基金会成立五十周年之际,也正是面对两个基本问题的恰当时机,第三部分就是这样做的。它首先提出的问题是,我们是否可以将一般的私人基金会税,特别是第4941条,视为国会在全国独立企业联合会诉西贝柳斯案中宣布的检验下对税收权力的宪法行使。其次,它考虑了我们是否应该将第4941节消费税定性为庇古税(Pigouvian tax)——这是经济学家的热门类别,但律师们不太熟悉。它对第一个问题的回答是“也许不是”,对第二个问题的回答是“是但是”。国会对501(c)(3)条款组织的自我交易不一致的处理以及低水平的执行使我质疑我们目前的自我交易规则的有效性。因此,本审查最后建议对适用于免税组织的消费税作出若干可能的改变。结论不仅详细考虑了一个相对较小但可能具有重大意义的变化——将一级消费税的减免规则扩大到第4941条,而且还支持了一个较大的变化——建议考虑采用美国国税局以外的方法来监管慈善部门。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Governance and Accountability: A Systematic Review to Examine Its Impact on Social Mission in Nonprofit Organizations Legal Issues in Mutual Aid Operations: A Preliminary Guide Political Justice and Tax Policy: The Social Welfare Organization Case Examining the Impact of Divestment from Fossil Fuels on University Endowments The Private Foundation Excise Tax on Self-Dealing: Contours, Comparisons, and Character
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1