Just to develop the tax / nonprofit angle a bit more, the last sentence (allowing donors to claw back donations) would violate every 501(c)(3) organization's governing documents, and make them ineligible for deductible contributions. State orgs a little more complicated but likely same result.
Also worth mentioning to university administrators: the language on returning private donations to the donor will make *all* donations to the signatory institution non-deductible. Section 170 requires irrevocable commitment.
We're grateful for this generous Jotwell write-up of "Taxing Dynasties" from Kent Schenkel (who is seemingly not on bsky).
trustest.jotwell.com/a-prescripti...
trustest.jotwell.com/a-prescripti...
A Prescription for Taxation of Dynasty Trusts - Trusts & Estates
Brian Galle, David Gamage & Bob Lord, Taxing Dynasties, available at SSRN (April 11, 2025).Kent D. Schenkel“Only morons pay the estate tax.” That is a bit of hyperbole, of course, from Gary Cohn, the ...
trustest.jotwell.com
Unfortunately carryover basis may just continue lock-in for the inheritor generation. Carryover plus an interest charge, with a taxpayer option to settle without further interest charges, is the proposal I've developed for wealthy heirs. Might make sense for homeowners with large equity amounts too.
George might be right but short of a pardon that would not protect IRS or exec. office of the President employees.
There may be angles other than 501p here that affected c3s should consider with counsel, IMO. Let's not spell them out for the administration though!
There may be angles other than 501p here that affected c3s should consider with counsel, IMO. Let's not spell them out for the administration though!
If I were an IRS employee tasked with assigning auditors for nonprofit orgs, I would probably want advice of counsel today on whether I have a reporting obligation under 7217(b).
(W/r/t any real organizations that might be describes in the "material support" clause).
Since IRS is within "all executive agencies," this directive appears to violate the criminal prohibition on presidents ordering tax audits.
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
Indeed, some might say they are necessary to save this economy. Some might even say it at 75,000-word length!
Reposted by: Brian D. Galle
The proposed 2% "Zucman Tax" on wealth in France is garnering huge crowds and overwhelming support. It's reveals the political durability of proposals to tax the rich, as Harold Meyerson writes.
prospect.org/economy/2025...
prospect.org/economy/2025...
Clamoring to Tax the Rich
In Berkeley, New York, Paris, and Vatican City, it’s become central to political battles—and religious concerns.
prospect.org
If anyone noticed a little rattle in Berkeley this morning, that was me dropping my manuscript on some commenters. Sorry.
I like this angle but hmm, is taking bribes a "trade or business"?
From what I'm hearing we're about to explore the legal boundaries of www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/...
26 U.S. Code § 7217 - Prohibition on executive branch influence over taxpayer audits and other investigations
www.law.cornell.edu
Reposted by: Brian D. Galle
Read the entire thread. See also www.regulations.gov/comment/ED-2... - co-written by several of the brightest minds and academics in the area of nonprofit and tax exemption law.
You can read our whole comment here:
www.regulations.gov/comment/ED-2...
www.regulations.gov/comment/ED-2...
Regulations.gov
www.regulations.gov
Our comment gets into all these points in more detail, of course, as well as other questionable aspects of the rule. Of course, a group effort, with extra thanks to @ellenaprill.bsky.social @benleff.bsky.social and Lloyd Meyer, plus helpful thoughts from folks like @smbrnsn.bsky.social .
12/13
12/13
One way this cashes out is that it seems obvious Ed lacks authority to issue the proposed rule. Ed is laying claim to a power that it has no expertise in administering, and which SCOTUS has already said Congress intended to deny to another, more expert, agency.
11/13
11/13
So, no, IRS cannot revoke charitable status based on any random chicken-shit local ordinance, or even on violations of civil rights law generally. Widespread social agreement is key, because otherwise IRS has too much power to punish the “unorthodox.”
10/13
10/13
We know this because Bob Jones Univ. had in fact broken the law repeatedly, and the opinion never even bothers mentioning that fact. E.g., in 1974, BJU lost a Title VI case in the 4th circuit, and didn’t even bother filing for cert. This could have made the whole rest of the opinion dictum.
9/13
9/13
That is not what Bob Jones says. Illegality isn’t some kind of special exception to the definition of “fundamental” public policy; instead, “malum in se” crimes like burglary and terrorisms are just examples of widespread social agreement.
8/13
8/13
Ok, now the PSLF rule. The proposed rule says that Ed can revoke PSLF status for basically any “substantial” illegal act, including any violation of civil rights law. Obviously, the admin plans to use this against schools it says were permitting antisemitism, "terror sympathizers," etc.
7/13
7/13
But the Bob Jones Court agreed racially-segregated schools are not charitable, pointing to 25 years of agreement by all 3 federal branches of government on that question. This longstanding and broad social agreement, not IRS whim, is what defines “fundamental” public policy, the Court said.
6/13
6/13
In 1983, in the famous Bob Jones case, SCOTUS would reach the same result for different reasons. Since the whole point of charity is to rival government “orthodoxy,” an agency like IRS can’t have the power to decide which policies it’s ok to defy and which it isn’t.
5/13
5/13
In 1971, IRS issued new guidance on orgs that violated fundamental public policy. An org that was formed to rob banks couldn’t be a charity, IRS said, and neither could a racially segregated school.
4/13
4/13
As SCOTUS has said, tax deductions for charity are supposed to support a vibrant and ideologically diverse set of alternatives to government “orthodoxy.” IRS rules for qualifying as a charity are mostly procedural, not substantive.
3/13
3/13
Supposedly, the rule’s new “illegality” concept is based on nonprofit law, but we argue that in fact it not only has no real resemblance to the nonprofit law’s illegality doctrine, but actively undermines nonprofit law’s core policies.
2/13
2/13
by Brian D. Galle — Reposted by: Matthew Bodie
A impressive team of nonprofit law experts (+me), have banded together to comment on the new proposed rules from the Education Dept. on public service loan forgiveness.
The rule purports to give ED authority to strip PSLF eligibility from any employer that acts with an "illegal purpose."
🧵 1/13
The rule purports to give ED authority to strip PSLF eligibility from any employer that acts with an "illegal purpose."
🧵 1/13