God Is My Roommate? Tax Exemptions for Parsonages Yesterday, Today, and (if Constitutional) Tomorrow

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

No full-text available

Request Full-text Paper PDF

To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.

ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Full-text available
Bos frontalis Lambert, 1804 and Bos gaurus Hamilton-Smith, 1827 are the domestic and wild forms, respectively, of the bovid commonly called the gaur. It is the world's largest cattle species. Bos gaurus is endemic to south and southeastern Asia, and today, the majority of its population occurs in India. It is sexually dimorphic, with adult males having a distinctive dorsal ridge and often a dewlap. Although B. gaurus consumes numerous browse species, it is primarily a grazer. Except for older males, all other B. gaurus are nearly always found in herds. It is classified as a Vulnerable species, and in 2011-2012, the first reintroductions of B. gaurus occurred in central India.
The creation of diverse and inclusive communities has long been one of American housing policy's most important commitments. The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed this commitment in an important decision that interpreted the federal Fair Housing Act to require that municipalities avoid housing policies with a discriminatory impact on protected classes. Following the Court's decision, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) enacted groundbreaking new regulations requiring communities to take affirmative steps to provide housing for all protected groups. In practice, however, realizing the goal of inclusion will prove exceedingly difficult. The Trump administration will almost certainly kill the new HUD regulation and is unlikely to make affordable housing a priority. In truth, it is doubtful that any administration of either party could succeed in diversifying communities because efforts to do so often stir intense political opposition from homeowners. As a result, scholarly and popular media accounts typically vilify these homeowners as selfish xenophobes. This Article presents a more complex picture. Though inclusion represents our society's highest aspiration, exclusion is both necessary and desirable in any conception of community. I examine research in several disciplines, including economics, sociology, and political theory, and discover in each discipline a strong argument that exclusion is indispensable to the idea of community. Nevertheless, this Article contends that the arguments in favor of exclusion, like the arguments against it, are overstated. It is possible to create communities that are diverse and inclusive, but doing so will, paradoxically, require some concessions to exclusion. The intractable question, often elided by the false choice between a mosaic of segregated "urban villages" and a "melting pot" that dissolves all differences, is how to balance the aspiration for inclusion against the practical need for exclusion. This Article concludes by suggesting compromises between inclusion and exclusion that may help make inclusive communities a reality.
Under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, any federal tax that is a "direct tax" (which is not an "income tax") must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the respective populations of the various states. The purpose of this Article to solve the riddle of what is a "direct tax" that is subject to the apportionment requirement. Since the apportionment requirement can only apply inequitably across the nation, the correct labeling of any federal tax (other than an income tax) as a "direct tax" amounts to the proverbial "kiss of death," as no such tax will be enacted. Recent commentary has staked out positions on this issue that I consider to be incorrect. Bruce Ackerman argues that that the Thirteenth Amendment (abolishing slavery) effectively repealed the apportionment-of-direct-tax clauses. Calvin Johnson argues that "direct tax" means only a tax capable (without effort) of being fairly apportioned among the states in accordance with population, namely, a capitation tax or a tax on the states (a requisition). At the other end of the spectrum, Erik Jensen argues that "direct tax" means any personal tax other than an income tax. I argue, on the basis of constitutional text, the formation of the constitution, post-ratification history, function, historical evolution, and judicial doctrine that "direct tax" encompasses only (1) capitation (head) taxes, (2) requisitions, and (3) taxes on tangible property (real and personal). The apportionment requirement made "political" sense in the framing period by linking the representation of states with the taxation of states, and also appeared to serve some narrow instrumental concerns. However, the theory is skewed, mainly because states are not really taxed as states, and states (as states) are only tenuously represented in Congress. Also, apportionment didn't really effectively deal with any instrumental concern (with the possible exception of a slave tax). I conclude that (apart from requisitions and head taxes), apportionment makes sense only with respect to taxes on tangible property, which is the only subject that can be allocated among the states by reason of geographical location. This limitation of "direct tax" also happens to be compatible with a mild federalism position. I also conclude that property taxes cannot be bootstrapped into validity as an "income tax." Finally, it is doubtful that the federal government can lay unapportioned taxes on imputed income from property and on human-capital endowments.
  • Id
  • Corp
  • U S Const
Within this context, the fact that the nature of 'direct' taxation was lost in a haze of uncertainty was not a vice-it helped the contending parties to patch together a verbally attractive compromise, and to turn their attention to more profitable subjects of conversation
  • Bruce Ackerman
Assessor v. W. Beaverton Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc., 18 Or
  • Washington Cty
  • N Y V Town Of Greece
Income tax advocates would prefer a Haig-Simons system but because of liquidity, valuation, or other problems, we have a realization system
  • David A Weisbach
  • Robin L Einhorn
West) District of Columbia D.C. Code Ann
  • Connecticut Conn
  • Id
  • See Id
  • Taft
  • . L Pub
  • Okla
  • N M Admin
Joseph's Church v. Assessors of Taxes of Providence
  • St
  • Ill
  • Id
  • Supra Einhorn
A)(3) Texas Tex. Tax Code Ann. � 11.20 (West) Vermont Vt
  • S C South Carolina
  • N W