How to use this Page

Speaking before the Family Research Council, the Republican nominee for president, Donald Trump, called for a repeal of the “Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment is part of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and prohibits tax-exempt organizations such as schools, hospitals, and churches from participating in political campaigns. The Republican Party’s 2016 platform echoes Mr. Trump.

The post Churches and politics: why the Johnson Amendment should be modified and not repealed appeared first on OUPblog.

Democratic Party platform for 2016 repudiates a major provision of Obamacare – but no one has said this out loud. In particular, the Democratic Party has now officially called for abolition of the “Cadillac tax,” the Obamacare levy designed to control health care costs by taxing expensive employer health plans. Tucked away on page 35 of the Democratic platform is this enigmatic sentence: We will repeal the excise tax on high-cost health insurance and find revenue to offset it because we need to contain the long-term growth of health care costs."

The post Why does the Democratic Party want the Cadillac tax abolished? appeared first on OUPblog.

I first met Elie Wiesel in the summer of 1965. Wiesel’s book Night had been translated into English five years earlier. Night was just beginning to be recognized in English-speaking countries. Wiesel was not yet then the impressive speaker he was soon to become. As he addressed the audience that summer about the horrors of the Holocaust, Wiesel was diffident to the point of shyness.

The post Elie Wiesel: the Hillel of our time appeared first on OUPblog.

Sometimes it is gratifying to have predicted the future. Sometimes it is not. The recent postponement of the so-called “Cadillac tax” until 2020 falls into the latter category. I predicted this kind of outcome when the Cadillac tax was first enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as “Obamacare.” I am unhappy that events have now proven this prediction correct.

The post Deferring the Cadillac tax kills it appeared first on OUPblog.

The Little Sisters of the Poor, an international congregation of Roman Catholic women, are unlikely litigants in the US Supreme Court. Consistent with their strong adherence to traditional Catholic doctrines, the Little Sisters oppose birth control. They are now in the Supreme Court because of that opposition.

The post The Little Sisters, the Supreme Court and the HSA/HRA alternative appeared first on OUPblog.

The “lame duck” session of the 113th Congress managed to avoid a shutdown of the federal government, but did not accomplish much else. Among the unfinished business left for the new, 114th Congress assembling this month is the Marketplace Fairness Act (MFA).

The MFA would permit states to require out-of-state Internet and mail order sellers to collect sales taxes if such sellers have annual gross revenues of $1,000,000 or more. The MFA would thus establish parity between such large out-of-state, online sellers and in-state sellers which must collect taxes on their sales because of their in-state physical presence.

Passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act is long overdue. It is neither fair nor efficient that a traditional brick-and-mortar store must collect sales taxes while an out-of-state Internet firm can ship the same products into the state without collecting sales tax because such Internet firm lacks an in-state physical location. While Internet and mail order purchasers are legally obligated to pay use taxes on their purchases, in practice, it is difficult for states to collect these taxes. The MFA would establish a level playing field by requiring large out-of-state sellers to collect taxes owed just as their in-state competitors must collect such taxes.

An interesting development during the 113th Congress was the growing recognition by many Republican lawmakers that the MFA implements conservative values. In the past, Internet firms have denounced the MFA as imposing a “new” tax, a label that is poison in the current political environment. However, as Rep. Steve Womack of Arkansas has recently observed, the status quo permits Internet shoppers “knowingly and willfully” to flout their obligation to pay use tax when Internet sellers do not collect such tax. Such disregard for legal duties, he states, “has never, never been a conservative value.”

Another important development has been the growing recognition by free market advocates that the status quo effectively constitutes heavy-handed industrial policy as the government effectively hobbles brick-and-mortar retailers in their competition with Internet sellers who do not collect sales tax.

A third interesting development has been the convergence of the business models of many Internet sellers and traditional retailers. Internet firms, most prominently Amazon, have sprouted local distribution centers to provide same day (sometimes one hour) delivery of products ordered online. In those states where Amazon builds distribution centers, Amazon must collect sales tax because of its in-state physical presence.

To compete with same day delivery, some traditional retailers are experimenting with Internet ordering. Under these experiments, customers purchase online with traditional retailers and then pick-up their goods that day at the store or have their goods shipped to them that day from a traditional brick-and-mortar location. Thus, the once bright line is blurring between traditional retailers required to collect sales tax and Internet sellers which need not collect tax because they lack in-state physical presence.

As Amazon and other electronic sellers collect sales tax in additional states, it is all the more anomalous for other Internet and mail order companies to refuse to collect such tax because they lack in-state physical presence.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would excuse from the duty to collect sales tax truly small Internet sellers, defined as those firms selling less than $1,000,000 annually over the Internet or by mail order. The only compelling objection to the MFA is that, if the MFA became law, a single dollar sale into a particular state would compel a covered seller to collect that state’s sales tax.

Infrequent and casual sales into any particular state should not trigger the obligation to collect that state’s sales tax. Hence, Congress should amend the MFA to require that an Internet seller need not collect the taxes of any particular state until that seller’s sales have have met some minimum threshold in that state. I would recommend that an Internet (or mail order) seller with $1,000,000 in aggregate sales be required to collect taxes for each state into which it sells $10,000 or more in any year.

So amended, the 114th Congress should enact the Marketplace Fairness Act.

Headline image credit: © hjalmeida via iStock.

The post Congress should amend and enact the Marketplace Fairness Act appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• “Lame Duck” session of Congress should pass Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act
• ISIS is an outcome of a much bigger problem
• The parsonage allowance and standing in the state courts

 

There is a reason that Congress’s post-election meetings are called “lame duck” sessions. They often aren’t pretty. Senators and representatives not returning to Congress (because they retired or were defeated for re-election) may not have strong incentives to legislate responsibly. Senators and representatives who will be part of the new Congress starting in January may feel that the lame duck session is an imposition on them since they will be returning to Washington in the new year.

Nevertheless, it is sometimes possible for “lame duck” convocations of Congress to be productive. Some observers, for example, thought that the legislative session following the 2010 election was constructive. Among other accomplishments, that session of Congress abolished Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell and extended President Bush’s tax cuts – though, of course, opponents of those decisions would have preferred that Congress hadn’t legislated on these matters.

Can the “lame duck” congressional session following the 2014 election be productive? In the hope that it can be, I suggest that the 113th Congress enact in its final days the Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act, previously known as the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act.

The Multi-State Tax Worker Tax Fairness Act has been introduced in the House by Representatives Himes, DeLauro, and Esty as H.R. 4085. In the Senate, the Act has been introduced as S. 2347 by Senators Blumenthal and Murphy.

The Act is aimed at the pernicious tax practice by which New York (and other states) impose income taxes on nonresident telecommuters for days such telecommuters work at their out-of-state homes and never set foot in the Empire State. New York’s extraterritorial taxation results in double taxation of nonresident telecommuters as New York taxes the income earned on these days while the state in which the telecommuter lives and works legitimately taxes this day also since the home state is providing public services to the telecommuter on the day she works at home.

Telecommuting is growing because, in a modern economy, it can entail significant benefits. Telecommuting extends job opportunities to individuals for whom traditional commuting is difficult, for example, the disabled, parents of small children, persons who live far from major employment centers. Telecommuting is also good for the environment, reducing the carbon footprints of employees who spend some of their work days at home and need not physically commute to work on those days.

Our concerns about Ebola reinforce the benefits of telecommuting. In an earlier time, a firm combating contamination simply had to shut its operations. Today, modern technology – the internet, email, cell phones, social media – can instead permit individuals to work and communicate with each other from their homes.

The benefits of interstate telecommuting explain why a diverse coalition supports the Multi-State Tax Worker Fairness Act to avoid double state income taxation of telecommuters on their days they work at home. Among the groups supporting the Act are the American Legion, the Christopher and Dana Reeve Foundation, the National Taxpayers Union, The Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the Association for Commuter Transsportion, The Military Spouse JD Network, and the Telework Coalition.

It is, in short, anomalous for New York to double tax the income of nonresident telecommuters on the days such telecommuters work at their out-of-state homes and never enter the Empire State. New York engages in this double taxation throughout the country. In one instructive case, New York taxed Mr. Manohar Kakar of Gilbert, Arizona on the income he earned working at home in the Grand Canyon State. New York engages in such double taxation despite the long-term costs to New York of chasing from its borders firms which embrace interstate telecommuting. Thus, the Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act would be good, not just for telecommuting, but for New York itself by encouraging firms which rely on out-of-state telecommuters to stay in the Empire State.

The upcoming “lame duck” session of Congress might fit the dominant pattern of post-election convocations of the House and Senate which accomplish little. But maybe not. If members of the 113th Congress choose to spend their final days in office productively, a productive place to start would be the Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act. Passing the Act would be good for the country by making state income tax systems safe for interstate telecommuting.

The post “Lame Duck” session of Congress should pass Multi-State Worker Tax Fairness Act appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Full-circle in the Middle East?
• The ethics of a mercenary
• Of wing dams, tyrannous bureaucrats, and the rule of law

 

By Edward Zelinsky

Few recent decisions of the US Supreme Court have engendered as much controversy as Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. In that case, the Court decided that a closely-held corporation’s employer-sponsored medical plan need not provide contraception if the shareholders of such corporation object to contraception on religious grounds.

Responding to the resulting controversy, Senator Patty Murray, along with many of her Democratic colleagues, has proposed legislation to overturn Hobby Lobby. Senators Kelly Ayotte and Deb Fischer, along with many of their Republican colleagues, have introduced legislation confirming Hobby Lobby. In the current political environment, there is little chance of either bill becoming law any time soon.

However, there is a response to Hobby Lobby which would address the concerns of both contraception advocates and of religious objectors to contraception. In particular, any employer which objects to providing birth control should instead be required to fund for its employees independently-administered health savings accounts (HSAs) or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). An HSA or HRA permits the covered employee to spend employer-provided, pre-tax health care dollars on any medical service the employee chooses, from birth control to an MRI, without implicating the employer in the employee’s spending decision.

The HSA/HRA alternative respects the religious rights of sponsoring employers. With conventional insurance or self-insured health plans, the sponsoring employer’s plan provides a menu of choices which frames the employees’ decisions. In contrast, the HSA/HRA approach permits employees to spend health care dollars on whatever medical services employees select including services to which the employer objects – without the employer’s plan framing the employees’ choices. HSAs and HRAs are thus like cash wages which, when spent by the employee, do not entail participation by the employer.

Justice Alito’s Hobby Lobby opinion identifies two other possible ways to provide contraception services without violating the rights of objecting employers. First, HHS might extend to closely-held for-profit firms the regulatory accommodation now limited to religious nonprofit entities other than churches. Under this accommodation, insurers or third-party administrators provide employees with contraception at no cost to the religious employer. Alternatively, the federal government might itself make birth control available to women who lack contraception coverage from their employer-sponsored health plans.

Commentators have expressed reservations about both these approaches. Some women’s health groups argue that a federal program will stigmatize the women who receive their contraception from such a program. Moreover, the problems of the Department of Veterans Affairs suggest the need for skepticism about the federal government as a provider of medical services. A number of religious groups contend that the current regulatory accommodation for religious employers does not go far enough and still makes employers participate in the provision of birth control to which they object.

In light of these concerns, HSAs and HRAs are compelling alternatives. HSAs and HRAs are analogous to cash wages which the employee spends as he chooses. Such accounts can assure women of the ability to obtain contraception which they seek with employer-provided, pre-tax health care dollars without burdening the religious beliefs of employers who object to involvement with contraception.

Suppose, for example, that Hobby Lobby is required to establish for each of its employees an HSA or HRA administered by the company’s bank. A Hobby Lobby employee could submit receipts to the bank for any type of medical care the employee selects. The employee would subsequently receive from the bank a reimbursement check for this care from his or her HSA/HRA account. Alternatively, HSA/HRA debit cards have become popular devices. These cards allow a covered employee to swipe when receiving health care services with the card.

These accounts could be used by each employee to defray any medical expense the employee elects including, but not limited to, the kinds of contraception to which the employer objects. However, the employer would not be complicit in the employee’s medical choices just as the employee does not participate in an employee’s decision to spend her wages on something with which the employer disagrees.

The HSA/HRA approach potentially has political legs. HHS (along with the Departments of the Treasury and Labor) could adopt regulations implementing this approach. Conservatives like HSAs and HRAs since these accounts implement a consumer-driven approach to health care. Liberals want to assure employees of contraception even if employers object to contraception. The HSA/HRA response to Hobby Lobby thus has bi-partisan appeal and is a compelling compromise as a matter of law and public policy.

Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America. His monthly column appears on the OUPblog.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only law articles on the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Image credit: Doctor With Piggy Bank. Photo by prosot-photography, iStockphoto.

The post The HSA/HRA response to Hobby Lobby appeared first on OUPblog.

        

Related Stories

• Hobby Lobby and the First Amendment
• Five myths about the “surge” of Central American immigrant minors
• Casey Kasem and end-of-life planning

 

By Edward Zelinsky

The American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 is widely understood as a victory for President Obama. However, the long-term story is more complicated than this. The Act in large measure confirms in bi-partisan fashion the tax-cutting priorities of George W. Bush.

In the Act, President Obama achieved his proclaimed goal of increasing income taxes on the country’s most affluent taxpayers through higher income tax rates and reduced deductions. The Act creates a new 39.5% income tax bracket for individuals with taxable incomes above $400,000 and for married couples filing jointly with taxable incomes above $450,000. It phases out personal exemptions for individuals with adjusted gross incomes over $250,000 and for married couples with adjusted gross incomes over $300,000. It also reduces itemized deductions for these affluent taxpayers.

For high income taxpayers, the Act increases the maximum capital gains tax rate from 15% to 20%. When combined with the new Medicare tax on investment income, this results in a combined tax of 23.8 % on capital gains for the highest income taxpayers.

It is thus unsurprising that the Act has been heralded as a triumph for Mr. Obama and his vision of a more progressive income tax law.

However, the reality is more complex than this. For the long run, the winner under the Act was Mr. Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush. The Act, as it gave Mr. Obama some of what he wanted, also made permanent much of what Mr. Bush desired as a matter of tax policy. Indeed, as a result of the Act, federal taxes are in important measure now permanently at the lower levels where President Bush wanted them.

The vast majority of Americans are not affected by the Act’s changes for the highest income taxpayers. For most taxpayers, the Act thus permanently ratifies the lower federal income tax rates championed by Mr. Bush in 2001. Moreover, the Act confirms that corporate dividends will be taxed at lower capital gains rates rather than as ordinary income. True: capital gains rates are now higher for the most affluent of taxpayers as a result of the Act. However, even at these higher rates, taxing dividends as capital gains, rather than as regular income, significantly reduces the tax burden on such dividends.

Consider, moreover, the federal estate tax. When President Bush took office in 2001, the federal estate tax applied to estates over $675,000. That floor was scheduled to increase in stages to $1,000,000. The maximum federal estate tax rate was then 55%.

While President Bush did not succeed in abolishing the federal estate tax, the Act provides that federal estate taxation will only apply to estates over $5,000,000 adjusted for increases in the cost of living. For 2013, an estate must be over $5,250,000 to trigger federal estate taxation. When it applies, the estate tax will be levied at a flat rate of 40%.

In the area of tax policy, President Bush did not achieve all he sought. No president does. If we define success more realistically, the 2012 Act confirms President Bush’s triumph in permanently lowering federal income tax rates for most Americans, reducing the effective tax burden on corporate dividends, and significantly reducing the reach of the federal estate tax.

To some, these tax reductions are welcome restraints on the federal leviathan. To others, the Bush tax reductions, now permanent, regrettably hamper the federal fisc. What cannot be doubted is that the Internal Revenue Code we have today in large measure reflects the tax-cutting priorities of George W. Bush. In adopting the Act, a Democratic President and Senate, along with a Republican House, permanently confirmed much of these tax-reducing priorities.

Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America. His monthly column appears on the OUPblog.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only business and economics articles on OUPblog via email or RSS.

The post And the winner is… George W. Bush appeared first on OUPblog.

By Edward Zelinsky

Among the bitter but unnecessary controversies of this election year was the dispute about the federal government’s mandate that employers provide contraception as part of their health care coverage for their employees. Employers religiously opposed to contraception believe this mandate infringes their right of Free Exercise of religion under the First Amendment. Advocates of the contraception mandate characterize it as vital to women’s health and choice.

This acerbic controversy is totally unnecessary. This dispute can be diffused by health savings accounts (HSAs) or similar employer-funded medical accounts under the employee’s control. Such a solution should be appealing to political leaders committed to civil discourse and mutual respect for opposing views. Unfortunately, such leaders appear to be in short supply.

Substantively, the most recent event in this controversy is the decision of US District Judge Reggie B. Walton. Judge Walton recently held that the contraception mandate violated the rights of Tyndale House Publishers, Inc., a Christian publishing company opposed on religious grounds to certain of the mandated forms of contraception. Judge Walton held that the contraception mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Earlier in the year, Missouri’s legislature, overriding the veto of Governor Jay Nixon, declared that Missouri employers religiously opposed to contraception need not provide contraception as part of their employees’ medical coverage. This Missouri law directly defies the contrary federal mandate adopted as part of President Obama’s health reform package.

On this issue, serious and sincere people come to different conclusions. These differences can be accommodated by requiring employers with ethical or religious qualms about any particular type of medical care to fund HSAs or similar accounts under employees’ control. Such accounts enable the employees to make their own decisions about the medical services such employees obtain with their employer-funded health care dollars.

HSA supporters tout such accounts to control medical costs and to increase consumer autonomy. But HSAs can also diffuse religious and ethical controversy by shifting contentious choices from employers to employees.

If employers have religious or ethical scruples about providing contraception or other medical services, they should instead pay into independently-administered HSAs for their employees. Employees who want these services could then purchase such services with the pre-tax funds in these accounts – just as such employees can today purchase these services with their post-tax salary dollars.

Like all compromises, this proposal is imperfect. A religious employer might object that it knows that its payments to independently-administered HSAs are underwriting services to which the employer objects. But the employee can use his or her salary dollars in ways to which the employer objects. At some point, the religiously sincere employer must acknowledge that control of compensation has shifted from the employer to the employer’s employees. And health care dollars are part of the employee’s compensation package.

The proponents of birth control and other similar medical services can object that employees purchasing such services through HSAs or similar accounts will pay more than employers who can purchase such services more cheaply because of economies of scale. That is an argument for improving the operation of the market for medical services through better information about the prices of such services and for the proponents of such services to themselves harness economies of scale by aggregating purchasers.

Many details must be decided before implementing this proposal. Most obviously, we must decide how much the religious employer must contribute to each employees’ HSA for the employer to be released from the mandate he considers religiously objectionable. This concern, like others, can be resolved by those committed to civil management of our differences.

While the public discussion has to date been stimulated by employers religiously opposed to providing contraception and abortion services, there may be other employers whose religious convictions preclude them from providing other kinds of health care services. Some employers who are Christian Scientists, for example, might object to some or all of the package of medical services being mandated by the federal government. If so, these employers should also be given the alternative of funding HSAs or other similar accounts which shift control of health care dollars to the employees.

A genuinely diverse society must be tolerant of genuine diversity. In this spirit, employers with religious objections to particular medical practices and services should be given the alternative of funding employees’ HSAs instead.

Edward A. Zelinsky is the Morris and Annie Trachman Professor of Law at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University. He is the author of The Origins of the Ownership Society: How The Defined Contribution Paradigm Changed America. His monthly column appears on the OUPblog.

Subscribe to the OUPblog via email or RSS.
Subscribe to only business and economics articles on OUPblog via email or RSS.
View more about this book on the

Image credit: Doctor With Piggy Bank. Photo by prosot-photography, iStockphoto.

By Edward Zelinsky

Like many of us, President Obama is a Warren Buffett fan. Most prominently, the president advocates, as a matter of tax policy, the so-called “Buffett Rule.” This rule responds to Mr. Buffett’s observation that his effective federal income tax rate is lower than the tax rate of Mr. Buffett’s secretary. In President Obama’s formulation, the Buffett Rule calls for taxpayers making at least $1,000,000 annually to pay federal income tax at a 30% bracket.

President Barack Obama and Warren Buffett in the Oval Office, July 14, 2010. Photo by Pete Souza. Source: Executive Office of the President of the United States.

In his most recent letter to the shareholders of Berkshire Hathaway, Mr. Buffett makes another provocative observation. However, Mr. Obama has so far ignored this most recent observation from the Oracle of Omaha. Addressing the nation’s continuing housing malaise, Mr. Buffett wrote:

A largely unnoted fact: Large numbers of people who have “lost” their house through foreclosure have actually realized a profit because they carried out refinancings earlier that gave them cash in excess of their cost. In these cases, the evicted homeowner was the winner, and the victim was the lender.

In contrast, the dominant narrative about the national mortgage crisis focuses upon the banks which, the narrative goes, knowingly induced homeowners to borrow money the banks knew the borrowers could not repay. The banks then sold the resulting mortgages to unsuspecting investors who were misled by the banks and by the rating agencies which put their respective seals of approval on these unsound mortgages. Banks subsequently compounded their misdeeds by engaging in widespread abuse while foreclosing on the homes subject to these mortgages.

This anti-bank narrative underpins the recent settlement among the federal government, the states and five major lending institutions (Bank of American, JP Morgan Chase, Citibank, Wells Fargo and Ally Financial, previously known as GMAC). Under this settlement, the banks will give a total of $25 billion to homeowners who have been foreclosed upon or who are in danger of being foreclosed upon.

This anti-bank narrative has had legs because there is much truth to it. We now know, for example, that many banks lent money with optimistic public faces at the same time that bank executives knew the loans were unsound and overly-risky.

However, Mr. Buffett’s comments reveal the incompleteness of the anti-bank narrative; many borrowers were culpable along with the banks. It takes two parties — a lender and a borrower — to make a bad loan. Most Americans know a friend, relative, or neighbor who opportunistically gamed the mortgage system during the pre-recession bubble, borrowing against the bubble’s continuation and spending the borrowed funds for personal consumption. As Mr. Buffett suggests, to declare that borrower a victim is to mislabel a willing player in the nation�