The IRS’s notice recognizing the deductibility of state passthrough entity taxes for federal personal income tax purposes has already spawned considerable interest regarding the issues raised by those levies for state tax purposes. Among these issues is the ability of PTE owners to claim a credit against their personal income tax liability in their state of residence for their distributive share of entity level taxes paid to other states where the income was earned. This article addresses the relevant issues in light of the underlying constitutional and policy concerns.

After two decades of relative dormancy, we are witnessing a resurgence in state estate tax controversies. Federal estate tax amendments beginning in 2001, which eliminated the federal credit for state estate taxes, greatly diminished the general significance of state estate taxes, as most states repealed their preexisting “pickup” or “sponge” taxes designed to absorb the maximum federal estate tax credit.

Recently, however, five state courts have addressed the due process clause implications of state estate taxes. Each court considered the question of whether the due process clause permitted the state to impose estate tax on qualified terminable interest property. The U.S. Supreme Court has thus far declined to consider this question, having denied petitions for certiorari from two of the state court decisions that raised it. In 2019, however, the Court did address a related state trust tax issue in Kaestner, which informs the QTIP due process analysis.

Many localities are facing unprecedented challenges — such as a dramatic rise in homelessness and insufficient transportation infrastructure — that have reached crisis levels. These localities are in a precarious position. If they do not solve these problems quickly, or if they impose overbearing and poorly designed taxes, there will be dire economic and social repercussions.

In response to these challenges, several localities recently enacted or proposed taxes targeted directly at large businesses, with revenues allocated explicitly for a designated purpose. Localities are gravitating toward targeted taxes for several reasons. Some assert that the success of large employers within the locality contributed to, or even directly created, these challenges. Perhaps most importantly, targeted tax laws serve a clear expressive function. Depending on the locality’s primary objective, targeted taxes may be problematic and counterproductive.

This Article begins by examining the recent local targeted tax provisions, which have crucial distinctions in motivations and mechanics. The Article then undertakes a tax policy and constitutional analysis of these targeted taxes, and considers whether they are properly characterized as a tax or a fee. The Article concludes with several proposed alternatives that will generate the requisite revenue — and may serve an expressive function — more effectively than targeted taxes.

This article examines the Wayfair case through the lens of substantive and enforcement jurisdiction and focuses on the question of whether there is a constitutionally required relationship between the nexus of the person that the state seeks to enlist as the tax collector and the underlying activity that the state is taxing.

Taxation of international athletes is a failure. The lack of a single, consistent regime results in substantial enforcement difficulties for tax administrators as well as a massive compliance burden and potential double taxation for athletes. International athletes’ unique characteristics necessitate a separate tax regime. Athletes are extremely mobile and transient taxpayers and are often among the most highly compensated individuals in the world. They can earn substantial sums of money during very short periods in a particular country. And athletes often have vast freedom to decide where to reside and where to perform. The implications of this broken tax system run very deep due to the increasing commercialization and popularity of professional sports around the globe.

The purpose of this Article is threefold. First, to compare how six significant countries - the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Spain, Brazil, and China - currently deal with the inherent problems of taxing extremely mobile, transient, high-income taxpayers with diverse income. Second, to illustrate that each country takes a very different - and often very convoluted - approach that has resulted in confusing, complex, and inconsistent regimes. And finally, to propose a solution that will benefit tax administrators and athletes alike. This Article presents a rough blueprint for a feasible regime that is simple, effective, efficient, and extremely beneficial for both tax administrators and athletes. Now the sports world will have to wait and see if any countries are willing to play ball.

Intercollegiate athletics are a fundamental part of the American college experience. Nothing else unites and impassions entire campuses while providing educational opportunities to thousands of students who might not otherwise be able to attend college. Congress and the IRS have long recognized the immense educational value of intercollegiate athletics and have properly exempted intercollegiate athletics from federal income taxation. However, a few vocal critics have overreacted to escalating broadcasting agreements and coaching salaries, often without stepping back to examine these transactions in a broader tax policy context. This Article does just that, and demonstrates that longstanding tax exemption is undeniably justified in intercollegiate athletics.

This Article begins in Part I with an overview of tax exemption fundamentals, including a discussion of the tax policy justifications for tax exemption. Part II provides a brief history of tax exemption for intercollegiate athletics, as well as an overview of the current legislative posture. Part III provides an analysis of tax exemption in intercollegiate athletics. This part illustrates that intercollegiate athletics satisfy all the requirements for tax exemption, and that even activities such as big-time D-I football and basketball very likely avoid the Unrelated Business Income Tax (UBIT). Additionally, this part demonstrates that tax exemption is justified for intercollegiate athletics under several tax policy justifications, and that intercollegiate athletics also fall outside the UBIT justifications. This part concludes with a proposal to clarify that intercollegiate athletics should remain fully exempt from federal income taxation.