WWW.ABSTRACT.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Abstracts, online materials
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 14 |

«OVERTAXING THE WORKING FAMILY: UNCLE SAM AND THE CHILDCARE SQUEEZE Shannon Weeks McCormack* Today, many working parents are caught in a “childcare ...»

-- [ Page 6 ] --

Cl. 1972) (“[F]rom 1913 on, Congress has always directed the domestic levy at some net gain or profit, and for almost 60 years the concept that the income tax seeks out net gain has been 580 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 114:559 and sell a widget—say, for $15 and $20, respectively—that taxpayer should not be taxed on the full sales price received but rather the sales price less the cost of the widget ($20 less $15). The $15 expense produced no consumptive benefit and instead was aimed purely at income production. It has, therefore, long been accepted that the tax system may not tax one’s “return of capital” (the $15), a requirement that seems to rise (at least almost) to the level of constitutional necessity.120 Similarly, to accurately measure net income, the Code allows taxpayers to deduct the “ordinary and necessary” expenses associated with activities aimed at earning a profit (as opposed to activities pursued for enjoyment).121 Section 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, for instance, allows taxpayers to deduct “all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business”122 and § 212 allows the deduction of expenses associated with other income-producing activities that are not quite “continuous” and “regular” enough to rise to the level of a trade or business.123 To illustrate, suppose Tony Toymaker is in the business of making and selling adorable handmade toys. In addition to deducting the costs of making the toys that he sells to customers (such as the cost of raw materials),124 which ensures that Tony has not been taxed on his return of capital, Tony may also deduct other necessary costs associated with his toy business. For instance, if he received a loan to purchase the space he uses to make and sell the toys, he may deduct the interest on that loan;125 if he instead rents the space, he may deduct the rental payments.126 If he hires an employee to help him in his shop, he may deduct the employee’s salary.127 Tony may not, however, deduct any of the costs associated with toys made inherent in our system of taxation. That is the ‘well-understood meaning to be derived from an examination of the [United States] statutes which provide for the laying and collection of income taxes’—the basic test set forth in Biddle v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue....” (alteration in original) (quoting Biddle v. Comm’r, 302 U.S. 573, 579 (1938))).

120. See Mertens Law of Federal Income Taxation §§ 5.06, 5.13 (Hertsel Shadian ed., 2008). See generally Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920); Doyle v. Mitchell Bros., 247 U.S.

179 (1918); Sullenger v. Comm’r, 11 T.C. 1076 (1948).

121. I.R.C. § 162(a) (2012); see Surrey, supra note 109, at 705–13 (explaining how business expenses must be deducted in order to properly calculate one’s tax liability).

122. I.R.C. § 162(a).

123. See, e.g., Higgins v. Comm’r, 312 U.S. 212 (1941) (stating general rule that a taxpayer may be engaged in a trade or business if his activities are extensive, regular, continuous, and undertaken with a profit motive).

124. I.R.C. § 1012 (providing a general rule that one’s basis in an asset is its cost); see id.

§ 1001 (defining taxable gain as amount realized minus basis).

125. Id. § 163.

126. Id. § 162(a)(3) (allowing deduction for “rentals or other payments required to be made as a condition to the continued use or possession, for purposes of the trade or business”).

127. Id. § 162(a)(1) (allowing deduction for “a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered”).

Uncle Sam and the Childcare Squeeze 581 February 2016] for his children, as these costs fall under § 262’s auspices,128 a result which is also theoretically sensible since these costs are purely consumptive.

Thus, tax relief for nonconsumptive costs such as deductions for costs associated with income-producing activities are necessary adjustments needed to properly measure taxable income. Congress cannot limit these sacrosanct adjustments without compromising the accurate calculation of the tax base.

C. Hybrid Expenses

While some expenses can be easily placed in the “consumptive” or “nonconsumptive” categories, other expenses are associated with activities that have both elements. For instance, consider Larry Lawyer who takes his client to lunch at Lawyer’s favorite restaurant to discuss a pending case.129 Is the expense a consumptive expenditure or is it associated with income production? The answer is clearly both. On one hand, the lawyer has had the opportunity to eat, which he needed to do regardless of his work on the client’s case. On the other hand, had he not had matters to discuss with his client (who might be a person of very fine taste, requiring some degree of pampering), he may well have eaten a peanut butter sandwich at his desk.130

As Professor Surrey puts it:

An individual is... regarded for tax purposes as having two personalities:

one is a seeker after profit who can deduct the expenses incurred in that search; the other is a creature satisfying his needs as a human and those of his family but who cannot deduct such consumption and related expenditures.131 Thus, if it were possible to tease out the motives of Larry Lawyer, he could not deduct the portion of the meal cost that represents the sustenance and enjoyment he derived from eating—the consumptive element—but could deduct the portion that was related to his business with the client, that





128. See id. § 262.

129. Expenses associated with business-related travel, meals, and entertainment are often cited as a classic example of expenses that are difficult to categorize. See generally Daniel I.

Halperin, Business Deduction for Personal Living Expenses: A Uniform Approach to an Unsolved Problem, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 859 (1974).

130. In Moss v. Comm’r, 758 F.2d 211, 212 (1985), Judge Posner presented the problem

colorfully as follows:

Suppose a theatrical agent takes his clients out to lunch at the expensive restaurants that the clients demand. Of course he can deduct the expense of their meals, from which he derives no pleasure or sustenance, but can he also deduct the expense of his own? He can, because he cannot eat more cheaply; he cannot munch surreptitiously on a peanut butter and jelly sandwich brought from home while his client is wolfing down tournedos Rossini followed by souffl´ au grand marnier.

e

131. 1 Stanley S. Surrey et al., Federal Income Taxation 496 (1972).

582 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 114:559 is, the additional cost, if any, he incurred to take the client to lunch compared to the lunch he would have eaten otherwise.132 In reality, it would be impractical (if not impossible) to make these differentiations and, as discussed further in Part III, the tax law would have to determine a practical, though almost always imperfect, way to handle these hybrid expenses. But presently, it is important for the reader to see that childcare expenses that enable a taxpayer to work as opposed to other childcare expenses—the costs of hiring babysitters for date nights, for example— may at least as an initial, intuitive matter be seen to fall somewhere in this middling area.

Further, it is important that the reader see that the tax relief provided in §§ 151 and 24, the sections allowing for the nonworking childcare credit and personal exemption discussed in Part I, is very different than the tax relief with which this Article is concerned—namely, tax relief to reflect childcare expenses associated with a taxpayer’s income-driven activities. As a matter of tax policy, Congress need not provide any relief for the expenses of caring for one’s children unrelated to work, as these represent purely consumptive expenses. By contrast, to the extent that working childcare costs are nonconsumptive expenditures, the Code should, as a matter of fundamental policy, offer tax relief to accurately calculate that taxpayer’s net income. Part III explores where working childcare expenses fall on this “expense spectrum.”

III. Analyzing the Working Childcare Expense

It seems almost intuitive that working childcare expenses are at least partly nonconsumptive costs of earning income and not purely consumptive costs.133 In fact, as discussed in Part I, when Congress changed § 21’s tax relief from a phased down deduction to a percentage credit, it “believe[d] that [working childcare] expenses should be viewed as a cost of earning income for which all working taxpayers may make a claim.”134 Nonetheless, some argue that all childcare expenses are purely personal expenditures, suggesting that tax relief is unnecessary. These arguments have some superficial appeal. But, as Section III.A shows, once this argument is analyzed more closely, it is entirely unpersuasive.

132. See Halperin, supra note 129, at 859–60; see also Moss, 758 F.2d at 212–13 (“Although an argument can thus be made for disallowing any deduction for business meals, on the theory that people have to eat whether they work or not, the result would be excessive taxation of people who spend more money on business meals because they are business meals than they would spend on their meals if they were not working.”).

133. Indeed, many share the intuition. See, e.g., Bittker, supra note 112, at 953 (“If the mother of small children takes a job outside the home, she may have to hire a nurse or babysitter; thus, [allowing a deduction for childcare expenses] is a plausible way to reflect the fact that the working mother’s salary is not all gravy.”); Feld, supra note 43, at 415–16, 447 (characterizing expense as at least in part an expense of earning income); William A. Klein, Tax Deductions for Family Care Expenses, 14 B.C. L. Rev. 917, 919 (1973) (stating the same categorization); Daniel C. Schaffer & Donald A. Berman, Two Cheers for the Child Care Deduction, 28 Tax L. Rev. 535, 536 (1973) (explicitly agreeing with Feld’s characterization).

134. S. Rep. No. 94-938, at 132 (1976).

Uncle Sam and the Childcare Squeeze 583 February 2016]

A. Working Childcare Costs as Purely Personal Costs

It is often argued that parents make the personal choice to have a child and that, therefore, all expenses associated with that initial choice—including childcare costs that enable a taxpayer to work—should not be used to

reduce one’s tax liability.135 It is easier to address this argument if it is broken into parts:

• Premise 1: The decision to have children is a personal choice.

• Conclusion 1: Thus, all expenses associated with children are personal expenses.

• Premise 2: No tax relief should be provided for any personal expenses.

• Conclusion 2: No tax relief should be provided for any expenses associated with children, since they are personal expenses.

In addition to seeming harsh (which is not in and of itself a failing), there are several weaknesses in this argument. First, the jump from Premise 1 to Conclusion 1 is incomplete. While some families are carefully planned, not every caregiver would say that she chose to have children. Many pregnancies are unplanned.136 Sometimes a caregiver gains custody of children after a loved one passes. And some individuals believe that their God prohibits birth control and that He alone is able to choose the number of children they should have.137 If it is the initial choice to have a child that renders all expenses associated with that child’s care unworthy of tax relief, may a family deduct the expenses if its members can show they did not wish to have the child? It is odd to think that tax relief would hinge on the circumstances under which each child was conceived.

Further, even for perfectly planned pregnancies, the “choice” to have children is a different choice than the choice to subscribe to Netflix or use an iPhone. In Article 16 of its Declaration of Human Rights, the United Nations recognizes the “family [as] the natural and fundamental group unit of society” and provides that “[m]en and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to

135. See, e.g., Halperin, supra note 129, at 865 (“The nondeductibility of [childcare expenses] is probably not caused by any doubt that these expenses are business related, but by the belief that they are based on underlying personal decisions which give rise to personal satisfaction.”).

136. According to one study in 2006, 49 percent of pregnancies were unintended—a slight increase from 48 percent in 2001. Unintended Pregnancy Prevention, Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (citing Lawrence B. Finer & Mia R. Zolna, Unintended Pregnancy in the United States: Incidence and Disparities, 2006, 84 Contraception 478 (2011)), http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/unintendedpregnancy/ [http://perma.cc/NGU6-NF4J].

137. For instance, among traditional interpretations of the Torah, active prevention of pregnancy is in violation of the commandment “be fruitful and multiply.” Genesis 1:28.

584 Michigan Law Review [Vol. 114:559 found a family.”138 In other words, for many, having children is not a choice so much as it part of the basic human experience.

In light of this and the original intent of Congress in enacting § 21’s percentage credit,139 it is better to think that the initial choice to procreate does not coat all expenses associated with one’s offspring with the taint of nondeductibility. But even if one were to take the rather staunch view that those costs are purely personal, Premise 2—that no tax relief should be given for any personal costs—is theoretically immature despite its ostensible statutory support. As discussed, § 262’s default rule that “personal, living, or family expenses”140 are nondeductible can be reasonably viewed as a proxy rule reflecting the more theoretically mature notion that consumptive costs should not reduce one’s tax liability because they do not represent a decrease in one’s wealth.



Pages:     | 1 |   ...   | 4 | 5 || 7 | 8 |   ...   | 14 |


Similar works:

«Wage Determination and Payroll Review (Davis-Bacon Act Compliance) The Federal Clean Water Revolving Loan Fund appropriation has recently included language to require that all new revolving loan fund wastewater projects comply with the Davis-Bacon and Related Acts (DBA). Federal wage laws are applicable to all construction contracts and/or subcontracts in excess of $2,000 which are part of the loan project. Davis Bacon and related Acts include the Davis-Bacon Act, Contract Work Hours and Safety...»

«Fred J. Barrett Tax Partner at PwC Mexico www.pwc.com Mexican Tax Reform 2014 Overview of 2014 Mexican Tax Reform Fred J. Barrett Tax Partner at PwC Mexico Objectives • In October 2013, the Mexican Congress adopted significant tax reform for years beginning in 2014.• The law is pending publication in the Official Gazette of the Federation • Most of the provisions enter into force as from January 1, 2014, although a few provisions of the new law are being postponed. • The federal...»

«ICL Journal | Vol 10 | 2/2016 | Articles 143 The Right to an Unchanging World – Indirect Expropriation in International Investment Agreements and State Sovereignty Ivan Pupolizio* Abstract: This paper examines indirect expropriation in international investment agreements and compares current foreign investments protection with property protection in the XIXth century USA, when the US Supreme Court adhered to an Abstract and de-physicalized conception of property later contested by legal...»

«KELVIN CHIA PARTNERSHIP Regional Law Firm Version: 1 February 2013 OUR OFFICES SINGAPORE VIETNAM VIETNAM Kelvin Chia Partnership HANOI HO CHI MINH CITY 6 Temasek Boulevard Kelvin Chia Partnership Kelvin Chia Partnership 29th Floor, Suntec Tower Four Unit 12-03/04 Prime Center Unit 1801-1803 Saigon Riverside Singapore 038986 53 Quang Trung Street Office Center Hai Ba Trung District 2A-4A Ton Duc Thang Street, District 1 Tel: (65) 6220 1911 Hanoi, Vietnam Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam Fax: (65) 6224...»

«Cornell Law Review Volume 94 Article 8 Issue 2 January 2009 The Anti-Corruption Principle Zephyr Teachout Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Zephyr Teachout, The Anti-Corruption Principle, 94 Cornell L. Rev. 341 (2009) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol94/iss2/8 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has...»

«Onwuka v. Owolewa CHIEF RAPHAEL ONWUKA V. LUKUMAN OWOLEWA COURT OF APPEAL (ILORIN DIVISION) CA/10/99 MORONKEJI OMOTAYO ONALAJ A, J.C.A. (Presided and Read the Leading Judgment) PATRICK IBE AMAIZU, J.C.A. WALTER SAMUEL NKANU ONNOGHEN, J.C.A. TUESDAY, 20TH MARCH. 2001. COURT Record of proceedings Power of court to take judicial notice of. CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE Witnesses Power to recall witness -When exercisable by court in criminal proceedings. EVIDENCE Affidavit evidence Where unchallenged...»

«INDEMNITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN MARITIME., 10 Loy. Mar. L.J. 319 10 Loy. Mar. L.J. 319 Loyola Maritime Law Journal Spring 2012 Article INDEMNITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE IN MARITIME OILFIELD CONTRACTS Kenneth G. Engerranda1 Copyright (c) 2012 Loyola University New Orleans; Kenneth G. Engerrand TABLE OF CONTENTS I. ALLOCATION OF RISKS IN MARITIME OILFIELD CONTRACTS 319 II. MARITIME PRINCIPLES FOR OILFIELD CONTRACTS 322 III. INDEMNITY FOR GROSS NEGLIGENCE 326 IV. MARITIME PUBLIC POLICY 343 V....»

«GlobeSurfer® X●1 User Guide High speed Wi-Fi router for Wireless USB modems Easy-to-use networking for shared connectivity ® GlobeSurfer X.1 User Guide OVERVIEW AND PURPOSE This document provides customers with information to help them use their GlobeSurfer® X.1 on a day to day basis. NOTICE The information in this User Guide is subject to change without notice. The contents herein are provided as is. Except as required by applicable law, no warranties of any kind, either express or...»

«NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGES –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– x :MICHAEL P. HUERTA, : Administrator, : Docket No. CP-217 Federal Aviation Administration, : : Unassigned Complainant, : : v. : : RAPHAEL PIRKER, : Respondent. : :...»

«DIFFUSION OF LAW: A GLOBAL PERSPECTIVE1 William Twining 1. Mapping Law Renewing initiatives stand as a starting point. They bring new needs and new satisfactions to the world, then spread or tend to do so through forced or spontaneous, chosen or unconscious, quick or slow imitation, always responding to a regular pace, as a light wave or a family of termites. (Gabriel Tarde 1979: 3) In my early years of teaching in Khartoum in the late 1950s, I used to teach a first year course called...»

«Death Penalty in People’s Republic of China: Quo Vadis? LU Jianping* / GUO Jian** Introduction According to Amnesty International's most recent death penalty report, The Death Penalty Worldwide: Developments in 2005, four nations accounted for 94% of the 2,148 recorded executions carried out around the world in 2005, Those four nations are China 1(1,770), Iran (94), Saudi Arabia (86), and the United States (60). That is to say, China executes more people every year than the rest of the world...»

«Legal Change — The Role of Advocates Sir Maurice Byers Lecture Chief Justice Robert French AC 22 June 2016, Sydney Introduction I learned from Maurice Byers a great advocate's perspective on the High Court — 'they're just chaps Bob, just chaps' — or so he told me, as we prepared for the hearing in Koowarta v Bjelke-Peterson1 in 1982. As a description of the gender of the Court it was accurate. I learned from him in Fencott v Muller2 in 1983 that one line of dismissive humour could do more...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.abstract.dislib.info - Abstracts, online materials

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.