est. 2019
Being published doesn’t necessarily mean being tied to paper anymore. As a fully online journal, the GGU Tax & Estate Planning Review is able to get your work in front of the world without being held back by a printer. The law moves quickly, so should the journal with whom you choose to publish.
Our tireless staff understands the specific needs of tax practitioners and just how time-consuming tax research can be. By connecting you directly to your editor from day one of the publishing process, we ensure that your work is handled with as much care as you put into it yourself.
On our site, you will find a wide of array of Notes, Comments, and Case Summaries, as well as attorney blog posts and video CLEs. Whether you’re an academic or a solo practitioner, we’d love to collaborate. Have more questions or, even better, know that you want to get started working together? Feel free to read more here or drop us a line.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted by the Trump administration, created the largest government-sponsored subsidy for urban renewal through the Opportunity Zones program. This tax expenditure is designed to delay and even avoid capital gains taxes to incentivize development in areas deemed to be in economic distress. While the program’s stated intent is to revitalize neighborhoods, build affordable housing, or promote small businesses, the selection of qualified areas is based on the income rate of residents. That is to say, a subsidy program focused on the physical place improvements has based its designation criteria on local resident’s income. While little academic scholarship has focused on this revolutionary program yet, this note finds that the Opportunity Zone approach to urban renewal likely furthers gentrification, is ripe for abuse, and lacks specificity to help the communities it is intended to serve. These statutory effects are seen clearly in a case study of the Opportunity Zones in Charlottesville, Virginia. In particular, the selection of Zones shows ability to manipulate the program to inappropriately subsidize already-occurring development. In response to the structural issues and the results from the Charlottesville case study, this note further provides a framework of policy solutions for state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, to utilize the opportunity for investment dollars while mitigating the negative externalities.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted by the Trump administration, created the largest government-sponsored subsidy for urban renewal through the Opportunity Zones program. This tax expenditure is designed to delay and even avoid capital gains taxes to incentivize development in areas deemed to be in economic distress. While the program’s stated intent is to revitalize neighborhoods, build affordable housing, or promote small businesses, the selection of qualified areas is based on the income rate of residents. That is to say, a subsidy program focused on the physical place improvements has based its designation criteria on local resident’s income. While little academic scholarship has focused on this revolutionary program yet, this note finds that the Opportunity Zone approach to urban renewal likely furthers gentrification, is ripe for abuse, and lacks specificity to help the communities it is intended to serve. These statutory effects are seen clearly in a case study of the Opportunity Zones in Charlottesville, Virginia. In particular, the selection of Zones shows ability to manipulate the program to inappropriately subsidize already-occurring development. In response to the structural issues and the results from the Charlottesville case study, this note further provides a framework of policy solutions for state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, to utilize the opportunity for investment dollars while mitigating the negative externalities.
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted by the Trump administration, created the largest government-sponsored subsidy for urban renewal through the Opportunity Zones program. This tax expenditure is designed to delay and even avoid capital gains taxes to incentivize development in areas deemed to be in economic distress. While the program’s stated intent is to revitalize neighborhoods, build affordable housing, or promote small businesses, the selection of qualified areas is based on the income rate of residents. That is to say, a subsidy program focused on the physical place improvements has based its designation criteria on local resident’s income. While little academic scholarship has focused on this revolutionary program yet, this note finds that the Opportunity Zone approach to urban renewal likely furthers gentrification, is ripe for abuse, and lacks specificity to help the communities it is intended to serve. These statutory effects are seen clearly in a case study of the Opportunity Zones in Charlottesville, Virginia. In particular, the selection of Zones shows ability to manipulate the program to inappropriately subsidize already-occurring development. In response to the structural issues and the results from the Charlottesville case study, this note further provides a framework of policy solutions for state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, to utilize the opportunity for investment dollars while mitigating the negative externalities.
Abstract Case Name: Schieber v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, T.C. Memo, T.C. Memo 2017-32 (Feb 9, 2017)Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: David W. Schieber and Janet L. Schieber Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Bankruptcy; Defined Benefit Plan; Cancellation of DebtNature of Case: Whether a defined benefit plan is an asset when determining insolvency for the purposes of cancellation of […]
With the rise in mobile payment applications, charitable donations using these platforms are increasing; equally, the use of a conduit between a donor and a charity to solicit and collect donations for the charity’s benefit is growing. If a charity is overfunded or the charitable purpose is no longer available, the conduit is caught holding a pool of designated donations without the ability to contact the donors for permission for a similar or alternate use. Using the Internal Revenue Code requirements, the authority and regulations are not apparent for a charitable contribution through a conduit, particularly not for a conduit’s use of a mobile payment application.
Part I of this Article provides an overview of the conduit situation and the complications that arise. Part II introduces the requirements of a charitable contribution and the services that mobile payment applications offer. Part III analyzes three donation methods: a contribution directly to a 501(c)(3) organization, a contribution to an individual, and a contribution to a 501(c)(3) organization through an individual. Part IV examines the potential solutions to the issue of overfunded charities and the motivations behind each. Finally, Part V offers a brief overview of the prevalence of the issue and the future of mobile payment applications. The interaction of the detailed requirements of the Internal Revenue Code for a charitable contribution and mobile payment applications’ privacy policies, without clear authority or direction on the specific conduit situation, has the potential to be problematic and challenging for the contributor, conduit, charitable organizations, and mobile payment applications.
Abstract Case Name: Chadwick v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 154 T.C. 84 (Jan. 21, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: David J. ChadwickRespondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Penalties and Addition Tax; Trust Fund Recovery Penalty; Summary Judgement; & Judicial Standard of Review.Nature of Case: Whether written supervisor approval is required for trust fund recovery penalties to be collected against […]
Abstract Case Name: Vivian Ruesch v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. No. 13 (Jun. 25, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Vivian RueschRespondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Tax DelinquenciesNature of Case: Whether the U.S. Tax Court has jurisdiction to decide Ms. Ruesch’s underlying liability for penalties assessed by the Internal Revenue Services (IRS); and whether Ms. Ruesch’s claim against the IRS […]
The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, enacted by the Trump administration, created the largest government-sponsored subsidy for urban renewal through the Opportunity Zones program. This tax expenditure is designed to delay and even avoid capital gains taxes to incentivize development in areas deemed to be in economic distress. While the program’s stated intent is to revitalize neighborhoods, build affordable housing, or promote small businesses, the selection of qualified areas is based on the income rate of residents. That is to say, a subsidy program focused on the physical place improvements has based its designation criteria on local resident’s income. While little academic scholarship has focused on this revolutionary program yet, this note finds that the Opportunity Zone approach to urban renewal likely furthers gentrification, is ripe for abuse, and lacks specificity to help the communities it is intended to serve. These statutory effects are seen clearly in a case study of the Opportunity Zones in Charlottesville, Virginia. In particular, the selection of Zones shows ability to manipulate the program to inappropriately subsidize already-occurring development. In response to the structural issues and the results from the Charlottesville case study, this note further provides a framework of policy solutions for state and local governments, as well as stakeholders, to utilize the opportunity for investment dollars while mitigating the negative externalities.
Abstract Case Name: Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc. v. Commissioner, 154 T.C. 68 (Jan. 16, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Laidlaw’s Harley Davidson Sales, Inc.Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: IRS Examinations; Civil Tax Penalties; Penalty Procedures; Collections Due Process.Nature of Case: Whether an IRS agent proposing a penalty under I.R.C. § 6707A for failure to disclose participation in […]
The 2021-22 GGU Tax & Estate Planning Review Write-On Competition will open on Tuesday, June 1, 2021, and run through noon on Friday, July 30, 2021. Invitations to the Journal will be extended no later than noon on Monday, August 2, 2021. Watch this space for more information approaching the competition dates. Thank you and […]
Abstract Case Name: Dickinson v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2020-128 (Sept. 3, 2020).Jurisdiction: U.S.T.C.Petitioner: Jon Dickinson and Helen Dickinson. Respondent: Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service.Concepts: Tax; Charitable Contribution; Charitable Deduction.Nature of Case: Does the immediate redemption of closely held stock by a sponsoring organization of a donor-advised fund cause the inherent capital gain to be included in the […]
Abstract Case Name: Webb v. Anderson Children Trust, 1st Dist., Hamilton Nos. C-190600, 2020-Ohio-4975.Jurisdiction: Ohio Court of Appeals for the First District.Plaintiffs-Appellant: Kimberly A. Webb, individually and as beneficiary of the Betty S. Anderson Children Trust.Defendant-Appellees: The Betty S. Anderson Children Trust and Michael R. Webb, individually and as Trustee.Concepts: Standard to prove lack of […]
Kathleen Wright (CPA, MBA, JD, LLM) is a CPA and Lawyer who has been practicing in the field of tax for over fifty years. She has previously worked in audit/tax at KPMG and then in varied positions at Citigroup where she was the financial controller of Citicorp Savings (the subsidiary that owned Citi’s west coast operations). For the last 30 years, she has had her own tax practice specializing in State and Local tax. She also has taught at various California State University campuses, most recently at CSU Fullerton. She frequently conducts seminars for the California CPA Education Foundation on various state and local topics. She is a member of the Editorial Board for State Tax Notes (a weekly periodical published by Tax Analysts in Washington DC covering developments in all fifty states). She was appointed by Governor Brown to the California Board of Accountancy, where she has served a three-year term.
Thomas D. Glascock (BA, JD, MBA, LLM in Taxation, LLM in Estate Planning, AEP) is admitted to practice law in New York, the District of Columbia, North Carolina, and South Dakota, and he concentrates his legal practice in business and estate planning, corporate transactional, and commercial real estate matters. Mr. Glascock also has significant experience handling municipal, economic development, and public finance matters. Actively involved in the community, he is a member of numerous professional organizations and serves as a director for multiple not-for-profit and community entities. He has also authored several published professional articles and participated in many speaking engagements, including as a presenter for continuing legal education seminar events. In addition, Mr. Glascock serves as editor of the Golden Gate University Tax and Estate Planning Review.
