Law Commons^™

A Diachronic Approach To Bob Jones: Religious Tax Exemptions After Obergefell, Samuel D. Brunson, David Herzig

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In Bob Jones University v. United States, the Supreme Court held that an entity may lose its tax exemption if it violates a fundamental public policy, even where religious beliefs demand that violation. In that case, the Court held that racial discrimination violated fundamental public policy. Could the determination to exclude same-sex individuals from marriage or attending a college also be considered a violation of fundamental public policy? There is uncertainty in the answer. In the recent Obergefell v. Hodges case that legalized same-sex marriage, the Court asserted that LGBT individuals are entitled to “equal dignity in the eyes of …

Let Prophets Be (Non) Profits, Samuel D. Brunson, David Herzig

Faculty Publications & Other Works

No abstract provided.

Dear I.R.S., It Is Time To Enforce The Campaigning Prohibition. Even Against Churches, Samuel Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In 1954, Congress prohibited tax-exempt public charities, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for office. To the extent a tax-exempt public charity violated this prohibition, it would no longer qualify as tax-exempt, and the IRS was to revoke its exemption.

While simple in theory, in practice, the IRS rarely penalizes churches that violate the campaigning prohibition and virtually never revokes a church's tax exemption. And, because no taxpayer has standing to challenge the IRS's inaction, the IRS has no external imperative to revoke the exemptions of churches that do campaign on behalf of or against candidates for office.

This …

Taxing Utopia, Samuel Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Nineteenth-century American religious movements challenged many aspects of American society. Although their challenges to mainstream America's vision of sex and marriage remain the best-known aspects of many of these groups, their challenges to traditional American economics are just as important. Eschewing individual ownership of property, many of these new Christian movements followed the New Testament model of a body of believers that held all property in common.

In the early twentieth century, these religious communal groups had to contend with something new: an income tax. Communalism did not fit into the individualistic economic system envisioned b-y the drafters of the …

Watching The Watchers: Preventing I.R.S. Abuse Of The Tax System,, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

As a result of broad outcries against the incompetence and aggressiveness of the LR.S., Congress reined in its behavior, requiring it to focus on treating taxpayers as customers. Congress also created oversight bodies to ensure that the I.R.S. would comply with the new mandate. Though those oversight bodies face some difficulties - most notably, the unwillingness of Congress to adequately fund them - they nonetheless have proven effective at checking the IR.S. 's misbehavior with regard to taxpayers.

Congress has not, however been as solicitous to the tax law itself The I.R.S. can act in ways that violate both the …

Taxing Polygamy, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The tax law treats married and unmarried taxpayers differently in several respects. Married persons, for example, can file and pay their taxes as a unified taxpayer, with rates that are different than those that apply to unmarried taxpayers. This different treatment of married persons has elicited criticism over the years. Some of the more salient criticisms include that married persons do not necessarily function as an economic unit, that joint filing discourages women from working, and that the various exclusions from the joint filing regime—including gay couples—is unfair.

This Article looks at joint filing through the …

Mutual Funds, Fairness, And The Income Gap, Samuel D. Brunson

Faculty Publications & Other Works

The rich, it turns out, are different from the rest of us. The wealthy, for example, can assemble a diversified portfolio of securities or can invest through hedge and private equity funds. When the rest of us invest, we do so largely through mutual funds. Nearly half of American households own mutual funds, and mutual funds represent a significant portion of the financial assets held by U.S. households.

The tax rules governing mutual funds create an investment vehicle with significantly worse tax treatment than investments available to the wealthy. In particular, the tax rules governing mutual funds force shareholders to …