Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Brief Of Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law Tax Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Respondents, Carlton M. Smith
Brief Of Benjamin N. Cardozo School Of Law Tax Clinic As Amicus Curiae In Support Of The Respondents, Carlton M. Smith
Amicus Briefs
The Cardozo Tax Clinic represents, for free, low-income taxpayers with respect to their federal income tax matters – both before the Internal Revenue Service and in the federal courts. Occasionally, the Clinic’s assistance has been sought after those individuals, on their own, filed a document late – either with the IRS or the courts -- under a time deadline set out in the Internal Revenue Code or in a regulation promulgated thereunder. Usually, no extraordinary equitable reasons occurred that might excuse such late filing. See, e.g., Iljazi v. Commissioner, T.C. Summary Op. 2010-59 (client simply filed administrative claim for …
Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn, Edward A. Zelinsky
Putting State Courts In The Constitutional Driver's Seat: State Taxpayer Standing After Cuno And Winn, Edward A. Zelinsky
Articles
This article explores the implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions in DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno and Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn. In Cuno and Winn, the Court held that state taxpayers lacked standing in the federal courts. Because the states have more liberal taxpayer standing rules than do the federal courts, Cuno and Winn will not terminate taxpayers’ constitutional challenges to state taxes and expenditures, but will instead channel such challenges from the federal courts (where taxpayers do not have standing) to the state courts (where they do). Moreover, municipal taxpayer standing in the federal courts, which …
Do Religious Tax Exemptions Entangle In Violation Of The Establishment Clause? The Constitutionality Of The Parsonage Allowance Exclusion And The Religious Exemptions Of The Individual Health Care Mandate And The Fica And Self-Employment Taxes, Edward A. Zelinsky
Articles
In Freedom From Religion Foundation v. Geithner, the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) argues that Code Section 107 and the income tax exclusion that section grants to “minister[s] of the gospel” for parsonage allowances violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. This case has important implications for a new federal law mandating that individuals maintain “minimum essential” health care coverage for themselves and their dependents. That mandate contains two religious exemptions. One of these exemptions incorporates a pre-existing religious exemption from the federal self-employment tax. These sectarian exemptions raise the same First Amendment issues as does the Code’s exclusion …