Search

In December 2019, Congress enacted and the President signed the Fostering Undergraduate Talent by Unlocking Resources for Education Act (FUTURE Act; P.L. 116-91). The law The law amends the Higher Education Act (HEA) to permanently authorize mandatory funding for grant programs to support HBCUs and MSIs. Authorization for this funding had expired after FY2019. Under the FUTURE Act, $255 million in annual mandatory funding is authorized for "fiscal year 2020 and each fiscal year thereafter." It also amends the HEA and the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) to specify a process through which the IRS may be granted authorization to disclose limited information to specified authorized personsfor the administration of certain federal student aid programs and other authorized purposes. Uponthe Secretary of Education requesting and certifying that an individual and any applicable family members have approved the disclosure of theirtax return information, the Secretary of the Treasury may provide their return information to any authorized person. The termauthorized person is defined as any person who is a Department of Education (ED) officer, employee, or contractor and is specifically authorized and designated by the Secretary of Education to receive return information for the applicable permitted purpose under the law. Prior to this amendment, the IRS could not readily share return information directly with ED or associated parties. The law further amends the HEA to fully implement the disclosure process. The changes made by the FUTURE Act focus on three aspects of applying for and certifying eligibility for federal student aid benefits: (1) Applications and recertification for income-contingent or income-based repayment plans; (2) Post-discharge earnings monitoring under total and permanent disability (TPD) discharge; and (3) Completion of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) and determination of eligibility for and the amount of federal student financial aid. Finally the law increases mandatory appropriations for Pell Grants by $25 million in FY2020 and each succeeding fiscal year.

August 14, 2024 Courts and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) have long recognized an implied requirement that organizations exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 501(c)(3) must not [...]

October 16, 2023 Under the federal tax system, organizations that qualify as 'churches' under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) receive more favorable tax treatment than other tax-exempt organizations. For [...]

October 25, 2023 Entities that are 'churches' under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 170(b)(1)(A)(i) also qualify as 'religious organizations' under IRC Section 501(c)(3), and thus are generally exempt from the [...]

May 11, 2022 Contents Taxing Jurisdiction in Federal Areas Federal Immunity from State Taxation Waivers of Federal Immunity Contacts Author Information Taxing Jurisdiction in Federal Areas The federal government and [...]

Congress enacted the Internet Tax Freedom Act to establish a moratorium on the imposition of state and local taxes that would interfere with the free flow of interstate commerce over [...]

July 12, 2021 On May 17, 2021, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in CIC Services, LLC v. Internal Revenue Service, narrowing the reach of the tax Anti-Injunction Act [...]

May 14, 2021 In its 2018 decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., the Supreme Court upheld a South Dakota law requiring out-of-state sellers, or 'remote sellers,' to collect and [...]

March 10, 2021 Contents Introduction How are marijuana business taxpayers treated differently than business taxpayers engaged in activities that do not violate federal law? How does Section 280E work? What [...]

February 23, 2021 On December 1, 2020, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in CIC Services v. Commissioner, a case that could resolve conflicts resulting from the way courts have [...]

The article focuses on the U.S. Congressional Research Service and it repots on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) General Welfare Exclusion, an exception to the rule that all income is subject to tax unless specifically exempted by Congress. It explains the origins and rationale of the exclusion, provides an overview of the instances where it has been applied, and reviews examples of Congress's intervention to partially codify the general welfare doctrine or overturn a past IRS exclusion.

The Taxing and Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution provides Congress with the power to tax. The U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted Congress's power to tax broadly, except for a few cases decided in the 1920s and 1930s, in which the Court invalidated taxes that were functionally regulatory penalties on the ground that they exceeded Congress's legislative authority. But while the Taxing and Spending Clause grants Congress broad authority to lay and collect taxes, the Constitution also contains clauses that expressly circumscribe the taxing power. The meanings of some of these express limitations appear evident, and thus are less subject to dispute. The Origination Clause requires legislation imposing taxes to begin in the U.S. House of Representatives. The Taxing and Spending Clause authorizes Congress to lay taxes for federal debts, the common defense, and the general welfare. Under the Export Clause, Congress may not tax articles exported from any state. Much less clear are the meaning of, and distinction between, direct and indirect taxes. Pursuant to Article I, Section 2, clause 3 and Article I, Section 9, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution, direct taxes are subject to the rule of apportionment, meaning Congress must set the total amount to be raised by the direct tax, then divide that amount among the states according to each state's population. The lack of clarity surrounding the meaning of a direct tax ultimately led to the adoption of the Sixteenth Amendment, which authorizes Congress to impose taxes on income without regard to the rule of apportionment. Article I, Section 8, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution subjects duties, imposts, and excise taxes-collectively referred to as indirect taxes-to the rule of uniformity. The rule of uniformity requires an indirect tax to operate in the same manner throughout the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court has not fully explained what, in its view, distinguishes direct taxes from indirect taxes. In addition to raising revenue, Congress also uses its taxing power to regulate private conduct. In cases where Congress has enacted a "tax" to compel adherence to a regulatory scheme that it could not impose directly using its other enumerated powers, the question of whether the Supreme Court will uphold a "tax" under the taxing power turns on whether the Court views the "tax" as the functional equivalent of a regulatory penalty. In a few cases, the Court has invalidated penalties disguised as taxes because, in its view, they exceeded the scope of Congress's taxing power. Central to this analysis is whether the characteristics of the "tax" are similar to traditional taxes and whether the "tax" is similar to a regulatory penalty in that it inflicts punishment for an unlawful act or omission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses use of several forms of guidance by the Treasury Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to help taxpayers understand the Internal Revenue Code. Topics include temporary treasury regulations issued by IRS, memorandum of agreement between Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and IRS's official interpretation of tax laws, related statutes, and tax treaties.