Law | Open Access Articles | Digital Commons Network™

Irs Denials Of Charitable Status: A Social Welfare Organization Problem, Michigan Law Review Dec 1983

Irs Denials Of Charitable Status: A Social Welfare Organization Problem, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note argues that the courts and the Service should recognize social welfare organizations as charitable and, consequently, contributions to such organizations should be tax deductible. Part I describes the Service's position and sets forth the statutory arguments supporting it. Part II raises two objections to the Service's position: (1) the distinction between social welfare organizations and charitable organizations lacks an adequate statutory justification, and (2) this distinction produces unpredictable and arbitrary results. Part III proposes that all social welfare organizations be accorded charitable status under subsection 50l(c)(3). This proposal would eliminate the arbitrary results now reached by the Service, …

Go to article

The Propriety Of Section 10(J) Bargaining Orders In Gissel Situations, Michigan Law Review Oct 1983

The Propriety Of Section 10(J) Bargaining Orders In Gissel Situations, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The courts have split on the question of whether a bargaining order constitutes ''just and proper" relief under section 10(j). This Note contends that such an order is always just in a Gissel situation but that a district court may properly issue one only in situations where the Board's prior decisions clearly establish the relevant labor policy and indicate a high probability that the Board will eventually issue a Gissel bargaining order. Part I of the Note develops the criteria relevant to determining what kind of temporary relief is "just." Although section 10(j) does not itself define these criteria, the …

Go to article

Does Nepa Require An Impact Statement On Inaction?, Michigan Law Review Apr 1983

Does Nepa Require An Impact Statement On Inaction?, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note considers the question of whether NEPA requires an EIS in cases of official refusal to exercise discretionary agency authority. Part I develops the competing theories for resolving this question. The current judicial attitude, which has excluded important cases with far-reaching environmental effects from the EIS requirement, plainly frustrates the statute's procedural purposes. Regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality define "major federal action" to include the failure to act under certain circumstances, and offer one alternative to the current approach. But the regulations condition the classification of inaction as action upon reviewability under the Administrative Procedures Act, …

Go to article

The Legalization Of American Society: Economic Regulation, Peter O. Steiner Apr 1983

The Legalization Of American Society: Economic Regulation, Peter O. Steiner

Michigan Law Review

My central thesis is that regulation may be insightfully classified into three broad types of response to perceived market failure, and I will merely touch examples of each. The first is protection of competitive results. I shall focus on natural monopoly regulation, although anti-trust would do as well. The second is protection from competitive results, such as entry control and setting of minimum prices. The third is regulation of externalities such as pollution and accidents arising as byproducts of more usual production.

Go to article

Rationalizing Regulatory Reform, Ernest Gellhorn Mar 1983