Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Rev. Proc. 2005-24 And The Upc Elective Share, Lawrence W. Waggoner
Rev. Proc. 2005-24 And The Upc Elective Share, Lawrence W. Waggoner
Law & Economics Working Papers Archive: 2003-2009
This article discusses Revenue Procedure 2005-24, which came as a bombshell to the estate-planning bar. The Rev. Proc. requires a spousal waiver of elective-share rights in order for a charitable remainder annuity trust (CRAT) or a charitable remainder unitrust (CRUT) created on or after June 28, 2005, to qualify for a charitable deduction. The elective share is a statutory provision common to most probate codes in non-community-property states that protect a decedent’s surviving spouse against disinheritance.
The Rev. Proc. is primarily though apparently not exclusively addressed to the elective share of the Uniform Probate Code (UPC). Unfortunately, the Rev. Proc. …
Taxing Utility, Terrence Chorvat
Taxing Utility, Terrence Chorvat
George Mason University School of Law Working Papers Series
In order to assess the efficiency of a tax, we should examine its effect on the behavior of individuals. In general, the less a tax affects behavior, the more efficient it is thought to be. The standard example of a non-distorting tax is a lump-sum tax, which does not change with the behavior of the taxpayer. However, this article demonstrates that behavioral distortions can and do arise from a change in even a lump-sum tax. The only truly non-distortionary tax would be one based on utility itself. Utility, which has been used as a norm for distributional analysis, is also …
Misassigning Income: The Supreme Court And Attorneys' Fees, Stephen B. Cohen
Misassigning Income: The Supreme Court And Attorneys' Fees, Stephen B. Cohen
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This past term's Supreme Court decision in Commissioner v. Banks and Commissioner v. Banaitis distorts foundational principles, known as assignment of income law, which help identify the person who must report income for federal tax purposes. The Court holds that assignment of income principles require a plaintiff to report as income the portion of a recovery paid to the plaintiffs attorney as a contingent fee. As a result, the plaintiff is taxed at excessively high rates, which may in some cases equal or exceed a confiscatory 100%. Taxing the plaintiff on the attorney-fee portion of a recovery also undermines the …