Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The LDS Church, Proposition Eight, and the Federal Law of Charities

Abstract: This brief Commentary considers the merits of the argument that the Mormon Church's support for Proposition Eight violated federal tax law I take as given the facts reported by the New York Times and other major news outlets Although the facts are not really in dispute, much of the underlying law is There are few clear guidelines governing lobbying by charities In the end it is impossible to say with certainty whether the Church's conduct will have any tax-law repercussions My conclusion that there is uncertainty, though, stands in contrast with existing claims that the expenditures of the LDS Church and others are clearly unproblematic In addition to its potential interest for those following closely the Proposition Eight saga, my discussion here is aimed at revealing some of the weaknesses of the law of charities In particular, the Proposition Eight episode exposes a serious hole in the fabric of the federal law: the possibility that massive, multi-million dollar lobbying expenditures, large enough to swamp any opposition, may be perfectly legitimate, so long as they are undertaken by a sufficiently gigantic organization It is hard to see a good justification for a rule that would, in effect, grant political influence only to the largest charities, but that seems to be one plausible interpretation of current law (albeit an interpretation I argue against here) Further, recent events show again that the IRS so far has failed to grapple with the most important questions surrounding the rules against lobbying, such as the problem of how to value the use of mailing lists, web sites, e-mail, and phone trees - tools that now are central to modern politics

The Original Meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause

Abstract: This article presents evidence of the original public meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. I show that the meanings of "necessary" we have inherited from John Marshall's discussion in McCulloch v. Maryland - a choice between "indispensably requisite" on the one hand and mere "convenience" on the other - is undercut by the available evidence. The truth lies somewhere in between. While these findings will, of course, be of interest to originalists, they should also interest the many constitutional scholars who consider original meaning to be one among several legitimate modes of constitutional analysis, as well as those scholars for whom original meaning is the starting point of a process in which it is "translated" into modern terms. By either account, it is important to get the original meaning right, even if it is not alone dispositive of today's cases and controversies. This is the companion to two previous articles - "The Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" 68 U. Chi. L. Rev. 101(2002) and "New Evidence on the Original Meaning of the Commerce Clause" 55 U. Ark. L. Rev. 847 (2003) - in which I presented evidence of the public meaning of Congress's power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." To determine the constitutionality of any particular legislation and evaluate judicial applications of the Commerce Clause, however, we must also consider the meaning of the Necessary and Proper Clause. For the expansive post-New Deal reading of congressional power owes as much to the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause as it does to its expansive reading of the Commerce Clause.

The Vanishing Case for Flat Tax Reform: Growth, Inequality, Savings, and Simplification

Abstract: In the short run, the Flat Tax decreases the tax burden on the upper classes and increases taxes for everyone else Consequently, Flat Taxers must make a controversial claim to demonstrate a net improvement in the economic position of the middle and lower classes: that the Flat Tax will cause enough economic growth to raise incomes of the middle and lower classes by more than the increased taxes that the Flat Tax would require them to pay However, the actual performance of the US economy since 1983 has seriously undermined this claim in two critical respects First, despite the progressive rate income tax, there has been substantial economic progress, including the longest period of sustained peacetime growth in our history and the lowest rates of unemployment and inflation in decades Had the Flat Tax been enacted, it is doubtful that it could have stimulated much more growth than in fact occurred Second, during the past fifteen years, economic growth has not benefited all economic classes to the same degree The upper classes have reaped most of the gains The rising tide has lifted the biggest boats much more than all others As a consequence, economic inequality has increased (Had the Flat Tax been in effect, reducing taxes on the rich and raising taxes on everyone else, economic inequality would probably have increased even more than it actually has) This history of growing inequality suggests that, even in the unlikely event that the Flat Tax had generated significant extra growth, it is doubtful that middle and lower class incomes would have risen enough to offset the higher burden that the Flat Tax would impose on them

An Overview of the “Tax Gap”

Abstract: When taxpayers underreport their income, understate their income, or fail to file their tax returns the government must spend money to audit taxpayers, to assess the tax, to collect the tax, and to borrow money to cover the lost revenue. The amount of such noncompliance with the tax laws is called the "Tax Gap" and currently it is estimated to be $345 billion annually.This article describes the scope, the causes of, and the tools available to Congress and the IRS to close the Tax Gap. In particular, I examine the role enforcement and other methods play in closing the Tax Gap. Given the complexities involved, there is no single method that, by itself, will significantly reduce the Tax Gap. Instead, several methods - discussed herein - will need to be employed simultaneously to close the Tax Gap.