Taxation-Federal Estate and Gift Commons^™

The Misuse Of Textualism: A Further Reply To Prof. Kahn, Stephen B. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Because readers have already endured four articles, two by me and two by Prof. Douglas A. Kahn, debating the meaning of section 67(e)(1), I am reluctant to respond to Prof. Kahn’s rejoinder, which appeared in the January 18 issue of Tax Notes. Nevertheless, our disagreement implicates the judicial craft of two U.S. Supreme Court members, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. I therefore feel it important to answer Prof. Kahn’s latest contentions, recognizing my duty to be as brief as possible.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor’S Tax Opinions, Stephen B. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Judge Sonia Sotomayor has written three published opinions on federal taxation, one as a District Court judge and two as a Court of Appeals judge. Two of the opinions deal with routine matters and are unremarkable in the sense that it is difficult to imagine the cases coming out any other way. Her third opinion, however, in William L. Rudkin Testamentary Trust v. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2d Cir. 2006), aff'd sub nom. Knight v. Commissioner, 552 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 782 (2008), generated a sharp difference of opinion with Chief Justice Roberts. Although Chief Justice Roberts, writing for …

Whom Do You Trust? A Reply To Prof. Kahn, Stephen B. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

In his 2008 opinion in Knight v. Commissioner, Chief Justice John Roberts harshly criticized then Court of Appeals Judge Sonia Sotomayor, writing that her approach to the Internal Revenue Code “flies in the face of the statute.” In the August 3 issue of Tax Notes, I argued that Roberts’ criticism of Sotomayor was “logically flawed and unwarranted.” In the September 21 issue of Tax Notes, Prof. Douglas Kahn defended Robert’s criticism of Sotomayor as “persuasive and accurate” and attacked Sotomayor’s opinion in the case and my defense of what she wrote. I believe that Prof. Kahn’s arguments in defense of …

Reply Brief For Petitioner, Knight V. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, No. 06-1286 (U.S. Nov. 2, 2007), Cornelia T. Pillard, Peter J. Rubin

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

Brief For Petitioner, Knight V. Commissioner Of Internal Revenue, No. 06-1286 (U.S. Aug. 23, 2007), Cornelia T. Pillard, Peter J. Rubin

U.S. Supreme Court Briefs

No abstract provided.

The Tax Of Physics, The Physics Of Tax, Stephen B. Cohen

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Sometimes ideas from science illuminate muddled legal thinking. Physics teaches that, for every particle of matter, there exists a corresponding particle of anti-matter. A particle of matter and its corresponding particle of anti-matter are identical except that they have opposite electrical charges. A proton's charge is positive, an anti-proton's negative. When matter and anti-matter meet, they produce the most powerful explosion in nature, totally annihilating each other.

With these laws of physics in mind, consider that a donor can make a gift in one of two ways: either by assuming a debt or by transferring as asset. In an instance …

Corporate Takeover Of Teaching Hospitals, Maxwell Gregg Bloche

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This article explores the potential and the dangers of this novel form of collaboration between academic medicine and the for-profit world. The author focuses on those arrangements--purchases and leasing agreements--by which investor-owned corporations operate, for a profit, hospitals that serve as major medical teaching and research sites. He begins by reviewing how the evolving needs of academic medical centers and for-profit hospital chains have generated mutual interest in such arrangements. The author then considers some frequently expressed ethical, economic, and other public policy objections to the provision of hospital services by for-profit firms. Opponents of the acquisition and leasing of …