Pub Date : 2017-06-16DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2017.60
Brian Howsare
The New Normal for Sales and Use Tax in the United States: Will a State Challenge to Supreme Court Precedent Overhaul Sales and Use Tax Compliance for Online Retailers?
美国销售税和使用税的新常态:一个州对最高法院先例的挑战将彻底改变在线零售商的销售税和使用税合规吗?
{"title":"The New Normal for Sales and Use Tax in the United States: Will a State Challenge to Supreme Court Precedent Overhaul Sales and Use Tax Compliance for Online Retailers?","authors":"Brian Howsare","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2017.60","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2017.60","url":null,"abstract":"The New Normal for Sales and Use Tax in the United States: Will a State Challenge to Supreme Court Precedent Overhaul Sales and Use Tax Compliance for Online Retailers?","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122707584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-06-07DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.52
M. Yu
Cross-Deductions in the Net Investment Income Tax Imposed on a Trust or Estate with Separate Shares
对具有独立股份的信托或遗产征收的净投资所得税的交叉扣除
{"title":"Cross-Deductions in the Net Investment Income Tax Imposed on a Trust or Estate with Separate Shares","authors":"M. Yu","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.52","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.52","url":null,"abstract":"Cross-Deductions in the Net Investment Income Tax Imposed on a Trust or Estate with Separate Shares","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126805294","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2017-06-07DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.53
S. Laucks
Brewing up Changes: Pennsylvania Should Modernize its Tax Laws and Policies to Encourage the Growth of its Craft Brewing Industry
酿造变化:宾夕法尼亚州应该现代化其税法和政策，以鼓励其工艺酿造行业的增长
{"title":"Brewing up Changes: Pennsylvania Should Modernize its Tax Laws and Policies to Encourage the Growth of its Craft Brewing Industry","authors":"S. Laucks","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.53","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.53","url":null,"abstract":"Brewing up Changes: Pennsylvania Should Modernize its Tax Laws and Policies to Encourage the Growth of its Craft Brewing Industry","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2017-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129154575","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-29DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.46
Philip G. Cohen
In Long v. Commissioner , the Eleventh Circuit determined that the substitute for ordinary income doctrine was inapplicable to a situation in which the taxpayer had assigned his position as plaintiff in a lawsuit which he had won at trial but was being appealed. The article examines the methodologies advanced for determining when the doctrine should be utilized and evaluates the decision in Long in light of these theories. The Eleventh Circuit correctly rejected the application of the doctrine in Long . The taxpayer had transferred a vertical slice of his property, i.e., he didn't retain a temporal interest in it. The right transferred was an appreciated equitable interest in property. Furthermore, he hadn't sold "the future right to earned income" but rather "the future right to earn income." By any reasonable methodology for determining if the substitute for ordinary income doctrine should apply, it is clear that in Long it shouldn't. In general, the substitute for ordinary income doctrine should not be utilized in circumstances where there has been a transfer involving a vertical slice (in contrast with a horizontal slice) of an appreciated equitable interest in property conferring a future right to earn income (and not a future right to earned income). Where it is clear that the above criteria have been met, as was the case in Long , the government should generally eschew arguing for the doctrine's application.
在Long v. Commissioner一案中，第十一巡回法院裁定，普通收入替代原则不适用于纳税人在他在审判中获胜但正在上诉的诉讼中指定其原告地位的情况。本文考察了为确定何时应使用该原则而提出的方法，并根据这些理论对龙案的判决进行了评价。第十一巡回上诉法院正确地驳回了该原则在朗案中的适用。纳税人已经转让了他财产的垂直部分，也就是说，他没有保留该财产的暂时权益。转让的权利是一种增值的财产衡平法权益。此外，他出售的不是“未来获得收入的权利”，而是“未来获得收入的权利”。用任何合理的方法来确定是否应该适用普通收入的替代原则，很明显，在朗案中不应该适用。一般来说，在涉及垂直部分(与水平部分相反)的财产的增值衡平法权益转让的情况下，不应使用普通收入替代原则，该转让授予未来获得收入的权利(而不是未来获得收入的权利)。如果上述标准已明显满足，如朗案，政府一般应避免为该原则的适用进行辩论。
{"title":"The Long (v. Commissioner) and Short of the Substitute for Ordinary Income Doctrine","authors":"Philip G. Cohen","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.46","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2016.46","url":null,"abstract":"In Long v. Commissioner , the Eleventh Circuit determined that the substitute for ordinary income doctrine was inapplicable to a situation in which the taxpayer had assigned his position as plaintiff in a lawsuit which he had won at trial but was being appealed. The article examines the methodologies advanced for determining when the doctrine should be utilized and evaluates the decision in Long in light of these theories. The Eleventh Circuit correctly rejected the application of the doctrine in Long . The taxpayer had transferred a vertical slice of his property, i.e., he didn't retain a temporal interest in it. The right transferred was an appreciated equitable interest in property. Furthermore, he hadn't sold \"the future right to earned income\" but rather \"the future right to earn income.\" By any reasonable methodology for determining if the substitute for ordinary income doctrine should apply, it is clear that in Long it shouldn't. In general, the substitute for ordinary income doctrine should not be utilized in circumstances where there has been a transfer involving a vertical slice (in contrast with a horizontal slice) of an appreciated equitable interest in property conferring a future right to earn income (and not a future right to earned income). Where it is clear that the above criteria have been met, as was the case in Long , the government should generally eschew arguing for the doctrine's application.","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"12 6 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"117265373","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-08-29DOI: 10.5195/taxreview.2016.48
J. Marron
Questions of characterization can often be overlooked when navigating through the complexities of our modern tax law and may become a pitfall for the unwary. A lack of clarity towards characterization has the potential to create highly litigated areas within our law that could put additional burdens upon judicial resources. The characterization of settlement payments arising under the False Claims Act has the potential to create such a problem. However, by adopting a predictable framework this problem may be avoided.
{"title":"The Tax Treatment of Damages Under the False Claims Act: An Unsettled Issue","authors":"J. Marron","doi":"10.5195/taxreview.2016.48","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/taxreview.2016.48","url":null,"abstract":"Questions of characterization can often be overlooked when navigating through the complexities of our modern tax law and may become a pitfall for the unwary. A lack of clarity towards characterization has the potential to create highly litigated areas within our law that could put additional burdens upon judicial resources. The characterization of settlement payments arising under the False Claims Act has the potential to create such a problem. However, by adopting a predictable framework this problem may be avoided.","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"17 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115039658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2016-04-08DOI: 10.5195/taxreview.2015.39
James J. Fishman
The scenario is common: a charity, typically with a name including an emotional word like “cancer,” “children,” “veterans,” “police,” or “firefighters,” signs a contract with a professional fundraiser to organize and run a campaign to solicit charitable contributions. The charity may be legitimate or a sham. The directors of the charity may be allied or coconspirators with the fundraiser, or as likely, well-meaning but naive individuals. The fundraiser raises millions of dollars through telemarketing, Internet, or direct mail solicitation. The charity receives but a small percentage of the amount. In some cases, at the close of the campaign, the organization owes the solicitor more than the amount raised for the charity.1 Thereafter, the state attorney general investigates the charity and finds fraud in the solicitation or an improper use of the funds raised. As part of the settlement, the professional solicitor agrees to be barred from operating in that particular state. Thereafter, the fundraiser moves to a neighboring jurisdiction, opens business (perhaps under a different name), and commences the same cycle of fraudulent fundraising using another charity.2 Deception in solicitation and misuse of monies raised for charitable purposes is not only a fraud on the donor; it also can be a diversion of tax dollars from state or federal treasuries. This article examines several approaches for regulating unscrupulous professional fundraisers and preventing carpetbagging, moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, committing fraud, or willfully violating regulatory requirements. It examines limitations in the existing regulatory framework to prevent charity fraud and offers possible solutions to the problem. As a first solution, the Internal Revenue Service should revitalize and extend the “private benefit doctrine” as a tool of enforcement. Second, Congress and the Service should amend § 4958 to address excess benefit transactions to more clearly include unscrupulous solicitors. A third possible resolution to the problem outlined would be the expansion of the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement authority to cover charitable solicitation generally. Currently, the FTC has authority over telemarketing by for-profit fundraisers.3 The legislation proposed would enable the creation of a self-regulatory organization under Federal Trade Commission aegis that fundraisers would be required to join. This new organization would enforce norms and rules for professional fundraisers, have the authority to discipline and, if necessary, to bar dishonest fundraisers from the fundraising industry. A final recommendation is the creation of an online, readily accessible database containing records of violations of professional fundraising companies and the individuals who own and work for them, the contracts between professional solicitors and the charities they work for, the results of fundraising campaigns listing the percentage of dollars raised that goes to the char
{"title":"Who Can Regulate Fraudulent Charitable Solicitation","authors":"James J. Fishman","doi":"10.5195/taxreview.2015.39","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/taxreview.2015.39","url":null,"abstract":"The scenario is common: a charity, typically with a name including an emotional word like “cancer,” “children,” “veterans,” “police,” or “firefighters,” signs a contract with a professional fundraiser to organize and run a campaign to solicit charitable contributions. The charity may be legitimate or a sham. The directors of the charity may be allied or coconspirators with the fundraiser, or as likely, well-meaning but naive individuals. The fundraiser raises millions of dollars through telemarketing, Internet, or direct mail solicitation. The charity receives but a small percentage of the amount. In some cases, at the close of the campaign, the organization owes the solicitor more than the amount raised for the charity.1 Thereafter, the state attorney general investigates the charity and finds fraud in the solicitation or an improper use of the funds raised. As part of the settlement, the professional solicitor agrees to be barred from operating in that particular state. Thereafter, the fundraiser moves to a neighboring jurisdiction, opens business (perhaps under a different name), and commences the same cycle of fraudulent fundraising using another charity.2 Deception in solicitation and misuse of monies raised for charitable purposes is not only a fraud on the donor; it also can be a diversion of tax dollars from state or federal treasuries. This article examines several approaches for regulating unscrupulous professional fundraisers and preventing carpetbagging, moving from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, committing fraud, or willfully violating regulatory requirements. It examines limitations in the existing regulatory framework to prevent charity fraud and offers possible solutions to the problem. As a first solution, the Internal Revenue Service should revitalize and extend the “private benefit doctrine” as a tool of enforcement. Second, Congress and the Service should amend § 4958 to address excess benefit transactions to more clearly include unscrupulous solicitors. A third possible resolution to the problem outlined would be the expansion of the Federal Trade Commission’s enforcement authority to cover charitable solicitation generally. Currently, the FTC has authority over telemarketing by for-profit fundraisers.3 The legislation proposed would enable the creation of a self-regulatory organization under Federal Trade Commission aegis that fundraisers would be required to join. This new organization would enforce norms and rules for professional fundraisers, have the authority to discipline and, if necessary, to bar dishonest fundraisers from the fundraising industry. A final recommendation is the creation of an online, readily accessible database containing records of violations of professional fundraising companies and the individuals who own and work for them, the contracts between professional solicitors and the charities they work for, the results of fundraising campaigns listing the percentage of dollars raised that goes to the char","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"44 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2016-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129901169","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-11-19DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2015.33
J. Newman
IRC Section 1221(b)(3), the Songwriters Capital Gains Tax Equity Act, should be repealed. It gives musical composers a tax advantage over artists and writers, with no justification.The Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which has been proposed for many years, should be enacted. However, it should be limited to donations of tangible property.
{"title":"Sales and Donations of Self-Created Art, Literature and Music","authors":"J. Newman","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2015.33","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2015.33","url":null,"abstract":"IRC Section 1221(b)(3), the Songwriters Capital Gains Tax Equity Act, should be repealed. It gives musical composers a tax advantage over artists and writers, with no justification.The Artist-Museum Partnership Act, which has been proposed for many years, should be enacted. However, it should be limited to donations of tangible property.","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-11-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121258842","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-07-10DOI: 10.5195/taxreview.2015.34
W. J. Brown
{"title":"My Last Time","authors":"W. J. Brown","doi":"10.5195/taxreview.2015.34","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/taxreview.2015.34","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"7 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114191170","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2015-02-24DOI: 10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2014.31
A. Morrison, R. Haight
{"title":"The Tax Treatment of Alternative Litigation Funding: Some Answers, but Mostly Questions","authors":"A. Morrison, R. Haight","doi":"10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2014.31","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/TAXREVIEW.2014.31","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2015-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129717771","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2014-07-15DOI: 10.5195/taxreview.2014.22
C. Crane
Class actions challenging tax collections and seeking refunds are commonplace to state tax administrators in many jurisdictions. In stark contrast, however, class actions remain unusual in the various federal courts in which suits claiming that federal taxes have been illegally collected can be brought. This paper will attempt to offer some tentative explanations for this disparity. The disparity can be easily generalized. The federal courts have viewed their ability to interfere with tax processes as strictly a matter of limited jurisdiction under specific statutory provisions. Taking their cues from statutes that clearly were intended to limit their power in tax cases, the federal courts have been relatively unwilling to interpret these statutes in ways that expand taxpayers’ remedies. State courts, on the other hand, seem far more likely to apply the same approach to tax cases as they would apply to any other civil case involving private parties, and as a result, feel far less hesitation in taking a more generous approach to taxpayers’ remedies. Why?
{"title":"Maintaining Class Actions in Tax Cases: Why Have Federal Litigants Been so Much Less Successful?","authors":"C. Crane","doi":"10.5195/taxreview.2014.22","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5195/taxreview.2014.22","url":null,"abstract":"Class actions challenging tax collections and seeking refunds are commonplace to state tax administrators in many jurisdictions. In stark contrast, however, class actions remain unusual in the various federal courts in which suits claiming that federal taxes have been illegally collected can be brought. This paper will attempt to offer some tentative explanations for this disparity. The disparity can be easily generalized. The federal courts have viewed their ability to interfere with tax processes as strictly a matter of limited jurisdiction under specific statutory provisions. Taking their cues from statutes that clearly were intended to limit their power in tax cases, the federal courts have been relatively unwilling to interpret these statutes in ways that expand taxpayers’ remedies. State courts, on the other hand, seem far more likely to apply the same approach to tax cases as they would apply to any other civil case involving private parties, and as a result, feel far less hesitation in taking a more generous approach to taxpayers’ remedies. Why?","PeriodicalId":237834,"journal":{"name":"Pittsburgh Tax Review","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134062547","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：