Keep Charitable Oversight in the IRS

Philip Hackney
{"title":"Keep Charitable Oversight in the IRS","authors":"Philip Hackney","doi":"10.52214/cjtl.v15i2.12713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"          Critics are increasingly calling for Congress to remove charity regulation from the IRS. The critics are wrong. Congress should maintain charity regulation in the IRS. What is at stake is balancing power between the state, charity as civil society, and the economic order. In a well-balanced democracy, civil society maintains its independence from the state and the economic order. Removing charitable jurisdiction from the IRS would blind the IRS to dollars placed in the charitable sector increasing tax and political shelters and wealthy dominance of charities as civil society. A new agency without understanding of, or jurisdiction over, tax cannot act as the bulwark as can the IRS. The critics are right that both the states and the IRS are failing at charitable regulation. Ideally, Congress would allocate sufficient resources to the IRS. However, the long history of charity regulation shows that they are unwilling to allocate the resources to this endeavor. This, in fact, is a flaw of the proposals for a quasi-federal charitable regulatory agency. These proposals will not generate new funds but will instead spread scarce resources even thinner. Instead, Congress should acknowledge its unwillingness to adequately fund charity regulation and shrink the tax-exempt sector by removing the parts that have limited justification for charitable benefits, such as hospitals and private foundations.","PeriodicalId":368484,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","volume":"77 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Tax Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjtl.v15i2.12713","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

          Critics are increasingly calling for Congress to remove charity regulation from the IRS. The critics are wrong. Congress should maintain charity regulation in the IRS. What is at stake is balancing power between the state, charity as civil society, and the economic order. In a well-balanced democracy, civil society maintains its independence from the state and the economic order. Removing charitable jurisdiction from the IRS would blind the IRS to dollars placed in the charitable sector increasing tax and political shelters and wealthy dominance of charities as civil society. A new agency without understanding of, or jurisdiction over, tax cannot act as the bulwark as can the IRS. The critics are right that both the states and the IRS are failing at charitable regulation. Ideally, Congress would allocate sufficient resources to the IRS. However, the long history of charity regulation shows that they are unwilling to allocate the resources to this endeavor. This, in fact, is a flaw of the proposals for a quasi-federal charitable regulatory agency. These proposals will not generate new funds but will instead spread scarce resources even thinner. Instead, Congress should acknowledge its unwillingness to adequately fund charity regulation and shrink the tax-exempt sector by removing the parts that have limited justification for charitable benefits, such as hospitals and private foundations.
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
让国税局继续进行慈善监督
越来越多的批评者呼吁国会取消国税局对慈善事业的监管。批评者错了。国会应保留国税局对慈善事业的监管。问题的关键在于平衡国家、作为公民社会的慈善机构和经济秩序之间的权力。在一个平衡良好的民主社会中,公民社会保持其独立于国家和经济秩序的地位。取消国税局对慈善事业的管辖权,会使国税局对慈善领域的资金投入视而不见,从而增加税收和政治庇护,并使慈善机构作为公民社会占据财富主导地位。一个不了解税收或对税收没有管辖权的新机构不可能像美国国税局那样发挥堡垒作用。批评者认为各州和国税局在慈善监管方面都是失败的,这一点是正确的。理想的情况是,国会为国税局分配足够的资源。然而,慈善监管的悠久历史表明,他们不愿意为这项工作分配资源。事实上,这也是准联邦慈善监管机构提案的一个缺陷。这些建议不会产生新的资金,反而会使稀缺资源更加分散。相反,国会应该承认其不愿意为慈善监管提供充足的资金,并缩小免税部门的规模,取消慈善利益理由有限的部分,如医院和私人基金会。
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
Keep Charitable Oversight in the IRS WORST CHOICE FOR SCHOOL CHOICE: TUITION TAX CREDITS ARE A BAD IDEA AND DIRECT FUNDING IS WISER TRANSACTION-SPECIFIC TAX REFORM IN THREE STEPS: THE CASE OF CONSTRUCTIVE OWNERSHIP SHAPING THE FUTURE OF TRANSNATIONAL TAX DISPUTE SETTLEMENT THE EXPANSION AND INTERNATIONALIZATION OF MANDATORY DISCLOSURE RULES
×
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