??? The Chouinards appear to be getting essentially the same tax benefit for giving their Patagonia shares to a 501(c)(4) as Seid got from giving his Tripp Lite shares to Leonard Leo's (c)(4). Both are avoiding tax on unrealized gains (but not claiming an itemized deduction) 1/ One small difference is that the Chouinards are paying $17.5m in gift tax on the 2% of their shares that are going to a trust outside the (c)(4). But normally, a $3b gift would result in $1.2b in gift tax. 2/

One of the most fascinating (& least discussed) aspects of Biden's student loan relief is the income element: It's effectively a 1-time $10k tax on crossing the $125k/$250k AGI thresholds--keyed to 2020 & 2021 AGI so as not to distort 2022 labor supply/avoidance decisions 1/ A 1-time retrospective tax like this is pure gravy in the social welfare function if no one expects it to reoccur. You get the redistributive benefit (shifting $$$ from households with lower to higher marginal utility of consumption) w/out the deadweight loss 2/

In addition to the hundred-millionaire minimum tax, the new Biden budget includes serious estate/gift/GST tax loophole closers, including a provision that would effectively end perpetual transfer tax-free dynasty trusts 1/ 🧵

https://twitter.com/crampell/status/1508492563837341696

This past summer, @AZBobLord & I noted that the Biden FY 2022 Greenbook still would allow high-net-worth individuals to obtain significant gift tax savings when they pay income tax for irrevocable grantor trusts: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…. 2/

The House will vote tomorrow on a regressive, expensive & offensive retirement bill: regressive in that benefits are weighted to the rich; expensive in that it blows up the deficit, offensive in that Congress is treating the American people like fools 1/🧵 .@SpeakerPelosi will bring the bill to a vote via suspension, which means any member can demand a roll call. It's a put-up-or-shut-up moment for progressive Dems: When leadership wants to rush through a big 🎁 to BlackRock & the top 1%, do you have the courage to object? 2/

As far as I can tell, the difference b/t Warner-Portman-Sinema (left) & Wyden-Lummis-Toomey (right) is 1) Warner &c limit the validator carveout to proof-of-work (huh?) & 2) Warner &c leave open the possibility that developers of coins/decentralized exchanges might be brokers 1/ I can't think of any reason why Treasury would ever want to favor more energy-intensive proof-of-work validation over other validation methods (eg, proof-of-stake). This seems 180° wrong from an environmental perspective 2/

There's a big disconnect b/t the way the Wyden-Lummis-Toomey crypto reporting amendment is being described by *both* supporters & opponents & what the amendment actually says. toomey.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/…. 🧵 1/ The amendment exempts miners, a narrow subset of wallet providers, & some coin/protocol developers from the definition of "broker." That's all it does ... 2/

Learned a ton from @qjurecic, @rroiphe & @benjaminwittes during this 45-min conversation. Some takeaways:
*The conduct alleged in the indictment is out-&-out tax fraud--the sort of stuff that sends others to jail
*But 3 big Qs moving forward:

https://twitter.com/lawfareblog/status/1410946203320295436

Q1: To paraphrase Howard Baker: What did Trump know & will Weisselberg say that Trump knew it?

Doing some quick math on Romney child tax credit plan. Plugging in #s for single parent w/2 kids ages 6-17 at 2 wage levels ($20k and $30k). In both cases, the representative taxpayer is worse off under Romney plan than under current law (by $1,249 at $20k, by $1,468 at $30k) 1/ Folks w/full specs on Romney plan details: Where am I going wrong? cc @dylanmatt @ScottElliotG @hamandcheese. Not clear from Romney's announcement or Niskanen Center analysis what the EITC would be for the $30k parent, so I'm eyeballing from this chart 2/

.@GerardNMagliocc's exquisitely timed paper on section 3 of the 14th Amendment (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…) ought to have a lot more than 98 SSRN downloads (& no doubt soon will). 1/ Some thoughts sparked by the paper: Congress could, eg, pass a modern-day analogue to the First Ku Klux Klan Act, imposing a duty on federal prosecutors to bring quo warranto actions against any state or federal officeholder involved in the insurrection of Jan 6, 2021 ... 2/

The evidence in favor of the proposition that the Senate can hold an impeachment trial for (& vote to convict) Trump after Jan 20 is, I think, very strong. @ProfBrianKalt's magnificent article on the subject is persuasive: ssrn.com/abstract=286277. 1/ The strongest evidence is 18th century practice. At the the time of the Convention, the 2 most recent impeachments (Macclesfield in 1725 & Hastings in 1787) had been impeachments of ex-officeholders. The founders were (mostly) English lawyers & would have understood this 2/

A Biden presidency w/a narrow GOP majority in the Senate is not half a loaf. It's the loaf. I'd be happier if Ds had flipped the Senate -- to mix baked-goods metaphors, that would be icing on the cake. But this still will make an enormous difference in Americans' lives 1/ Probably the most important task facing the winner of this presidential election is SARS-CoV-2 vaccine rollout. This won't be easy under any President. But imagine doing it under a President who doesn't believe in science, downplays the virus, & stokes anti-vaxxer sentiment 2/

Seeing lots of statements in my Twitter feed to the effect that Trump's executive orders are unconstitutional. I think that's wrong. Some of the EOs (technically, in 3 of 4 cases, presidential memoranda) are likely ineffective. Some may be unwise. They're not unconstitutional 1/ The memo on unemployment relief (whitehouse.gov/presidential-a…) relies on statutory authority (42 USC §5174(e)) to provide financial aid to disaster victims. Congress gave the President this authority in the bipartisan Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, signed by President Clinton 2/

The liability provisions in McConnell’s “HEALS Act” do not reflect a serious attempt to address problems with the tort system. This is pure political posturing (thread) 1/ I say this as someone who has come out in favor of targeted tort reforms to address particular problems arising from the intersection of tort liability & the novel coronavirus (papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…) cc @DBRodriguez5 2/

New w/@DBRodriguez5: An incentives analysis of business liability to consumers and workers who contract COVID-19 ... plus an original proposal to allow a safe harbor for businesses that promptly inform customers about possible exposures ex post. ssrn.com/abstract=36063…. 1/ We begin w/survey of legal landscape. Tl;dr (but it's not long, so please read): These won't be easy claims for plaintiffs to win. Causation will be especially tough to prove. Workers' comp exclusivity will bar lots of employee claims. But occasional outsized awards are likely 2/

This potentially has huge tax implications
Today, @RichardRubinDC reported on the new sec. 7508A(d), which suspends tax filing & payment obligations in a disaster area for the length of the disaster + 60 days wsj.com/articles/irs-r… 1/

https://twitter.com/KellyO/status/1241173299360661505

I noted 4 reasons why Trump’s 3/13 declaration migh not trigger sec. 7508A(d):
1) No incident date in declaration
2) No geographic area in declaration
3) A convoluted argument I came up w/ involving the definition of the word “manner”
4) Difference b/ “emergency” & “disaster” 2/

To those complaining about the Trump executive order classifying Jews as a race/nationality: The move of characterizing Jews as a race/nationality in order to bring us w/in the ambit of federal civil rights protections is not new. SCOTUS did it in a unanimous 1987 decision
1/ Shaare Tefila Congregation v Cobb, 481 US 615, 617 (1987): "the question before us is not whether Jews are considered to be a separate race by today's standards, but whether, at the time §1982 was adopted, Jews constituted a group of people that Congress intended to protect."
2/

Worth restating why Neal's request clearly satisfies legitimate-purpose standard:
-IRS acknowledges risk of pro-president bias in audits; thus follows special procedure for auditing president's returns
-Hasn't applied procedure to Trump's 2009-2016 returns (still under audit) 1/

https://twitter.com/RichardRubinDC/status/1125515923853651973

-Also hasn't applied procedure to returns filed by Trump-controlled businesses & trusts
-All this notw/standing the fact that the IRS recognizes the risk of bias in its audits of president's returns 2/

Can the White House’s decision to process tax refunds during the shutdown be challenged in court? Maybe. A few *tentative* thoughts (thread) 1/

https://twitter.com/RichardRubinDC/status/1082440235328380938

The decision means IRS employees will be asked to work w/out pay to process the refunds. An employee might sue under the Administrative Procedure Act, challenging the IRS’s refund processing as “agency action … not in accordance w/law” (the “law” being the Antideficiency Act) 2/

Law says that HHS “shall” pay cost-sharing subsidies to insurers. Trump’s exec order can’t change the law 1/9 Q ≠ *whether* fed govt will make payments but *when*. If Trump admin won’t pay, insurers can sue fed govt in Ct of Fed Claims—& will win 2/9