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 […]
Bacilio Mendez II is a fourth year Honors JD/MBA student at the GGU School of Law/Edward S. Ageno School of Business and is proud to be the founding editor of the GGU Tax Review. The former Director of Information and Compliance for Benjamin Madison Wealth Advisors, in 2013, Bacilio was named the National Lawyers Guild (NLG) Legal Worker of the Year and was an NLG 2012 W. Haywood Burns Memorial Fellow for Social & Economic Justice (focusing on data visualization of public information). Prior to law school, Bacilio earned a Master of Library and Information Science from Pratt Institute where he served the Kings County Supreme Court, of the New York State Unified Court System, as the 2010 Nathan R. Sobel Law Library Fellow and was inducted into Beta Phi Mu (the International Library & Information Studies Honor Society). Bacilio also holds a Bachelor of Arts in Modern Dance from Oberlin College and is a member of both the Screen Actors Guild‐American Federation of Television and Radio Artists and the Actors’ Equity Association.
Christian Ramos is currently enrolled in the J.D. Program at the Golden Gate University (GGU) School of Law, where he has taken classes in both the Tax and Estate Planning LLM Programs. Mr. Ramos has interned at Donahue Fitzgerald LLP, Hedemark Law, and Legal Assistance for Seniors, where he was exposed to the problems that face the senior community and their financial goals. He has worked and interned in the Estate Planning legal community since 2016, learning and growing through his exposure to high value estate plans that achieve both the client’s goals, while also being the most tax advantageous. He holds a a B.A. in Government from California State University Sacramento with Minors in both Philosophy and Sociology. Mr. Ramos is expected to Graduate from GGU Law in May 2020 and plans to sit for California Bar Exam in July 2020.
Steven Reading holds an LL.B from the University of London and is an GGU Law LL.M Candidate for 2020. He is a startup founder with expertise in funding, scaling, and selling companies. He has spent the past fifteen years building online communities and developing global startup ecosystems. He currently works as the principal consultant in a firm connecting constituents from international markets to global Innovation Hubs. He practices an open innovation approach to digital transformation based upon connecting Corporations, Startups, VC’s, Government Agencies and Universities, through technology, to the Modern Consumer. Steven has lived and worked in the Bay Area for 25 years and now resides in Berkeley, California.
Corey Timpson recently passed the California bar exam and is a practicing attorney in Walnut Creek, doing primarily civil litigation defense work. Ms. Timpson also works on estate planning matters for a limited clientele. She received a Bachelors of Arts in Psychology from the University of California, Los Angeles in 2016, a Juris Doctorate from Golden Gate University School of Law in 2019, and is currently enrolled, full-time, in the Dual Estate Planning and Taxation LLM Program at Golden Gate University School of Law with an expected completion date of December 2020. While in law school Ms. Timpson was the Executive Research Editor of the Golden Gate University Law Review, where her was article published in the Journal’s February 2019 Ninth Circuit Survey. Ms. Timpson is interested in taxation and estate planning because it is not only an interesting and always changing area of law, it is also an incredibly important field of law and will always be relevant.
