Wealth & Risk Management Blog

William Byrnes (Texas A&M) tax & compliance articles

Posts Tagged ‘history’

The History of Life Insurance in America: Producers, Commissions, & Premium Financing

Posted by William Byrnes on September 10, 2010


This article explores the development of life insurance in America through the Civil War.  Many common factors from the old policies and companies are still apparent in the system of Life Insurance underwriting today, including producers, commissions, and premium financing.

Please read my blogticle at Advisor FYI The History of Life Insurance in America: Producers, Commissions, & Premium Financing

Posted in Legal History | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The History of Life Insurance in America: Insurance Companies

Posted by William Byrnes on September 9, 2010


This article continues the exploration of life insurance in America. Here the development of life insurance companies as compared to individuals covering the risk leads to new underwriting standards and objectives.

Please read my blogticle at Advisor FYI The History of Life Insurance in America: Insurance Companies

Posted in Legal History | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The History of Life Insurance in America: New Standards

Posted by William Byrnes on September 8, 2010


This article explores the new development of actuarial analysis to improve life underwriting standards.  The life companies writing insurance in the early period of America experienced significant growth and created the beginnings of the policies we recognize today.

Please read my blogticle at Advisor FYI The History of Life Insurance in America: New Standards

Posted in Legal History | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The History of Life Insurance in America: Development of a New Product

Posted by William Byrnes on September 7, 2010


This article continues the exploration of life insurance in America. In this chapter we follow the development of life insurance itself and its growth and development from a simple concept to complex arrangements.  Learn about how the creation of insurance markets in the Colonies led to the development of life insurance as we know it today. 

Please read my blogticle at Advisor FYI The History of Life Insurance in America: Development of a New Product

Posted in Legal History | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

The History of Life Insurance in America: The Beginning

Posted by William Byrnes on September 6, 2010


In a turn from addressing weekly subjects like ‘Alternative Risk Transfer’ and ‘Independent Contractors’,  this week our AdvisorFYI blog will provide the financial advisor with the history of life insurance in America.  AdvisorFX Journal will focus on avoiding transfer taxes with a capitalized entity sale to a defective grantor trust.

This article explores the beginnings of life insurance in America.  The foundations of life insurance is actually found in other areas of risk management at the end of the 18th century.  Follow along as we take a tour though history and examine how insurance evolved to be the way it is today.  Read it as The History of Life Insurance in America: The Beginning

Posted in Legal History | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Tax Information Exchange (TIEA): an Opportunity for Latin America and Switzerland to Clawback the Capital Flight to America?

Posted by William Byrnes on September 3, 2009


Tax Information Exchange (TIEA): an Opportunity for Latin American to Clawback Its Capital Flight Back from America?  Perhaps even Switzerland?

This blogticle is a short note regarding the potential risk management exposure of US financial institutions’ exposure to a UBS style strategy being employed by foreign revenue departments, such as that of Brazil, and Switzerland.  Of course, such foreign government strategies can only be productive if US financial institutions are the recipient of substantial funds that are unreported by foreign nationals to their respective national revenue departments and national reserve banks, constituting tax and currency/exchange control violations in many foreign countries. 

The important issue of Cross Border Assistance with Tax Collection takes on more relevance when foreign governments begin seeking such assistance from the USA Treasury in collecting and levying against the hundred thousand plus properties purchased with unreported funds, and whose asset value may not have been declared to foreign tax authorities where such reporting is required in either the past, or the current, tax years.  

In the 15 week online International Tax courses starting September 14, we will be undertaking an in-depth analysis of the topics covered in this blog during the 10 online interactive webinars each week.

Tax Elasticity Of Deposits

In the 2002 article International Tax Co-operation and Capital Mobility, prepared for an ECLAC report, from analysing data from the Bank for International Settlements (“BIS”) on international bank deposits, Valpy Fitzgerald found “that non-bank depositors are very sensitive to domestic wealth taxes and interest reporting, as well as to interest rates, which implies that tax evasion is a determinant of such deposits….”[1]  Non-bank depositors are persons that instead invest in alternative international portfolios and financial instruments. 

Estimating How Much Latin American Tax Evasion are US Banks Involved With?

Within two weeks I will post a short blogticle that I am preparing regarding an estimated low figure of $300B capital outflow that has begun / will occur from the USA pursuant to its signing of a TIEA with Brazil.  Some South Florida real estate moguls have speculated that this TIEA has played a substantial role in the withdrawal of Brazilian interest in its real estate market, which has partly led to the sudden crash in purchases of newly contrasted condominium projects.  

Three historical benchmarks regarding the imposition of withholding tax on interest illustrate the immediate and substantial correlation that an increase in tax on interest has on capital flight.  The benchmarks are (1) the 1964 US imposition of withholding tax on interest that immediately led to the creation of the London Euro-dollar market;[2] (2) the 1984 US exemption of withholding tax on portfolio interest that immediately led to the capital flight from Latin America of US$300 billion to US banks;[3] and (3) the 1989 German imposition of withholding tax that led to immediate capital flight to Luxembourg and other jurisdictions with banking secrecy[4].  The effect was so substantial that the tax was repealed only four months after imposition.

The Establishment of London as an International Financial Center

The 1999 IMF Report on Offshore Banking concluded that the US experienced immediate and significant capital outflows in 1964 and 1965 resulting from the imposition of a withholding tax on interest.  Literature identifies the establishment of London as a global financial centre as a result of the capital flight from the US because of its imposition of Interest Equalisation Tax (IET) of 1964.[5]  The take off of the embryonic London eurodollar market resulted from the imposition of the IET.[6]  IET made it unattractive for foreign firms to issue bonds in the US.  Syndicated bonds issued outside the US rose from US$135 million in 1963 to US$696 million in 1964.[7]    In 1964-65, the imposition of withholding tax in Germany, France, and The Netherlands, created the euromark, eurofranc and euroguilder markets respectively.[8]  

The Establishment of Miami as an International Financial Center

Conversely, when in 1984 the US enacted an exemption for portfolio interest from withholding tax, Latin America experienced a capital flight of $300 billion to the US.[9]  A substantial portion of these funds were derived from Brazil.  In fact, some pundits have suggested that Miami as a financial center resulted not from the billions generated from the laundering of drug proceeds which had a tendency to flow outward, but from the hundreds of billions generated from Latin inward capital, nearly all unreported to the governments of origination.

The Establishment of Luxembourg as an International Financial Center

In January of 1989, West Germany imposed a 10% withholding tax on savings and investments.  In April it was repealed, effective July 1st, because the immediate cost to German Banks had already reached DM1.1 billion.[10]  The capital flight was so substantial that it caused a decrease in the value of the Deutsche mark, thereby increasing inflation and forcing up interest rates.  According to the Financial Times, uncertainty about application of the tax, coupled with the stock crash in 1987, had caused a number of foreign investment houses to slow down or postpone their investment plans in Germany.  A substantial amount of capital went to Luxembourg, as well as Switzerland and Lichtenstein.

Switzerland’s Fisc May Come Out Ahead

Perhaps ironically given the nature of the UBS situation currently unfolding, a Trade Based Money Laundering study by three prominent economists and AML experts focused also on measuring tax evasion uncovered that overvalued Swiss imports and undervalued Swiss exports resulted in capital outflows from Switzerland to the United States in the amount of $31 billion within a five year time span of 1995-2000.[11]  That is, pursuant to this transfer pricing study, the Swiss federal and cantonal revenue authorities are a substantial loser to capital flight to the USA.  The comparable impact of the lost tax revenue to the much smaller nation of Switzerland upon this transfer pricing tax avoidance (and perhaps trade-based money laundering) may be significantly greater than that of the USA from its lost revenue on UBS account holders.  Certainly, both competent authorities will have plenty of work on their hands addressing the vast amount of information that needs to be exchanged to stop the bleeding from both countries’ fiscs.

Let me know if you are interested in further developments or analysis in this area.  Prof. William Byrnes (www.llmprogram.org)


[1] International Tax Cooperation and Capital Mobility, Valpy Fitzgerald, 77 CEPAL Review 67 (August 2002) p.72.

[2] See Charles Batchelor, European Issues Go from Strength to Strength: It began with Autostrade’s International Bond in 1963, The Financial Times (September 25, 2003) p.33; An E.U. Withholding Tax?

[3] Globalisation, Tax Competition, and the Fiscal Crisis of the Welfare State, Reuven Avi-Yonah, 113 HVLR 1573, 1631 (May 2000).

[4] Abolition of Withholding Tax Agreed in Bonn Five-Month-Old Interest Withholding To Be Repealed, 89 TNI 19-17.

[5] See Charles Batchelor, European Issues Go from Strength to Strength: It began with Autostrade’s International Bond in 1963, The Financial Times (September 25, 2003) p.33; An E.U. Withholding Tax?

[6] 1999 IMF Offshore Banking Report  p.16.

[7] 1999 IMF Offshore Banking Report  p.16-17.

[8] 1999 IMF Offshore Banking Report  p.17.

[9] Globalisation, Tax Competition, and the Fiscal Crisis of the Welfare State, Reuven Avi-Yonah, 113 HVLR 1573, 1631 (May 2000).

[10] Abolition of Withholding Tax Agreed in Bonn Five-Month-Old Interest Withholding To Be Repealed, 89 TNI 19-17.

[11] Maria E. de Boyrie, Simon J. Pak and John S. Zdanowicz The Impact Of Switzerland’s Money Laundering Law On Capital Flows Through Abnormal Pricing In International Trade Applied 15 Financial Economics 217–230 (Rutledge 2005).

Posted in Compliance, Financial Crimes, information exchange, Legal History, OECD, Taxation, Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Early American Distrust and Gradual Acceptance of Charitable Institutions

Posted by William Byrnes on August 9, 2009


This week I again turn my blogticle to expiscate the eristic historical context of the tax advantaged treatment enjoyed by charitable institutions.  In the previous blogticle on the Common Law history of charity law, we examined English history from the period 1536-1739.  Now I turn my attention to the period of the United States’ colonial period until 1860. 

Colonial Period 

The Colonies inherited the English common law and its history discussed in my previous blogticle on this subject, but without the 1736 Mortmain Act.  In addition to the common law, the colonialists also inherited the English distrust of perpetual land restriction, the power exercised by the Catholic Church because of its substantial land holdings, and the distrust of the Anglican Church because it was an organ of the English government.[1] 

During the early period after the War of Independence, some states legislatures and courts exercised this inherited distrust by voiding the establishment of charitable trusts, denying the grant of charters for charitable corporations, and constricting transfers to both.[2]  Seven states, being Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, voided charitable trusts.[3]  In contrast, many states, in their constitutions and well as by statute, borrowed from Elizabeth I’s 1597 statute to protect incorporation for charitable purposes.[4]  Charitable incorporations included churches, charities, educational institutions, library companies, and fire companies.[5]  The policy behind the charitable statutes included promotion of freedom of religion, easing legislative workloads, and easing of incorporation procedures.[6] 

But not all states had charitable incorporation statutes.  Some states, such as Virginia, denied granting charters to charitable corporations for several years.[7]  Of the states with charitable incorporation statutes, all contained restrictions regarding maximum income, expenditure for charitable purpose, as well as reporting rules to guard against the accumulation of property.[8]

Post Colonial: Universal Property Taxes Crystallize the Tax Exemption Debate

By the middle of the century, the Supreme Court of the United States, by examination of the Statute of Charitable Uses and common law applicable in the U.S., derived a broad definition for charity.[9]  The Court upheld contributions to “charitable” institutions based upon the factors of the institutions’ public purpose and freedom from private gain.  In 1860, upholding a devise and bequest for establishing two education institutions, the Court stated

         “a charity is a gift to a general public use, which extends to the rich, as well as to the poor” and that “[a]ll property held for public purposes is held as a charitable use, in the legal sense of the term charity.”[10] 

In 1877, upholding a devise to an orphan’s hospital, the Court presented that:

        “A charitable use, where neither law nor public policy forbids, may be applied to almost any thing that tends to promote the well-doing and well-being of social man . . . . ‘Whatever is given for the love of God, or the love of your neighbor, in the catholic and universal sense, — given from these motives and to these ends, free from the stain or taint of every consideration that is personal, private, or selfish.’ ”[11]

Until the mid 1850s, many state statutes allowed incorporation for charitable purposes but did not necessarily exempt these corporations from state tax.[12]  Before the 1830s, the states did not have a universal tax system and thus, while tax exemption expressed government favoritism, it was not practically significant.[13]  However, the 1830s enactment of universal property tax regimes brought the issue of exemption to the fore.[14]  During the remainder of the century, several states enacted limited tax exemption for churches and educational institutions.[15]  By example, many states exempted from property tax the land upon which a church stood, but taxed the church’s income, including ministerial, rental, and endowment.[16]  The Massachusetts statutory tax exemption for religious, educational, and charitable organizations, applying to Harvard University, did not include an exemption for real estate or businesses held for purposes of revenue.[17]

Tax Policy Debate

Supporters and critics of exemption debated three primary policies concerning the granting of limited tax exemption for churches.  From a public policy perspective, the general community felt that the church served as the communal epicenter.[18]  Church supporters also put forward that churches provide the benefits of encouragement of personal morality, public spiritedness, and democratic values.[19]  Critics countered that from an equity standpoint, exemption inequitably expressed state favoritism for religious groups over non-religious property owners.[20]  Also, exemption critic James Madison warned that the accumulation of exempt Church property would eventually result in religion influencing the political process.[21]

Supporters provided a tax policy justification that the limited exemptions applied only to the charitable institution’s property that produced insignificant income, such as cemeteries, the church, the school, thus the exemption’s revenue effect would be slight.[22]  Critics responded that whereas both exempt and non-exempt persons used the state’s services, only non-exempt persons paid for them with resultant increased burdens upon them.[23]  Supporters retorted to this argument of an inequitable burden with a government benefit argument that the churches provided public services, such as orphanages and soup kitchens, not performed by non-exempt payers.[24]

From an economic policy justification, supporters forwarded that because many of these exempt institutions did not produce much revenue, the tax could not be collected, leading to unpopular land seizure.[25]  Critics responded that the exemption primarily benefited wealthy churches with valuable property and significant income rather than the humble ones with low land value and de minimis income.[26]  Again employing the subsidy argument, supporters argued that all church income, regardless of church size, went to provide charitable services, such as religious activity and caring for the poor.[27]

Prof William Byrenes (www.llmprogram.org)


[1]After the revolution, the colonialists felt the same distrust for the Church of England as that for Rome.  See James J. Fishman, The Development of Nonprofit Corporation Law and an Agenda for Reform, 34 Emory L.J. 617, 624 (1985) (commenting on the ongoing anti-charity-anti-clerical atmosphere of the post-colonial period); Note, The Enforcement of Charitable Trusts in America: A History of Evolving Social Attitudes, 54 Va. L. Rev. 436, 443-44 (1968) (same).  This distrust of the Catholic Church reached into the late nineteenth century, creating opponents of tax exemption for religious institutions.  See Stephen Diamond, “Of Budgets and Benevolence: Philanthropic Tax Exemptions in Nineteenth Century America”, 17 (Oct., 1991) (Address at the N.Y.U. School of Law, Program on Philanthropy, Conference on Rationales for Federal Income Tax Exemption, Oct. 1991), http://www.law.nyu.edu/ncpl/abtframe.html (last visited Jul. 9, 2003); see also Erika King, Tax Exemptions and the Establishment Clause, 49 Syracuse. L. Rev. 971, 1037 n.8 (1999) (quoting James Madison’s statement that “[t]here is an evil which ought to be guarded [against] in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations.”)

[2] See Evelyn Brody, Charitable Endowments and the Democratization of Dynasty, 39 Ariz. L. Rev. 873, 906-10 (1997); Fishman, supra at 623-25; John Witte, Jr., Tax Exemption of Church Property: Historical Anomaly or Valid Constitutional Practice?, 64 S. Cal. L. Rev. 363, 384-85 (1991).

[3] 4 Austin Wakeman Scott, The Law of Trusts § 348.3 (3d ed. 1967).  Some states, such as Virginia in 1792, repealed the pre-independence English statutes, including the Statute of Charitable Uses.  The lack of the Statute of Charitable Uses consequence, as argued by the States and agreed by the Supreme Court in Trustees of Philadelphia Baptist Ass’n v. Hart’s Executors, 17 U.S. 1, 30-31 (1819), was that charitable trusts without stated beneficiaries were void because of the lack of common law precedent for establishing a trust without a beneficiary.  Nina J. Crimm, An Explanation of the Federal Income Tax Exemption for Charitable Organizations: A Theory of Risk Compensation, 50 Fla. L. Rev. 419, 427 (1998) (noting that this decision and ones following it led to the establishment of charitable corporations instead of trusts to receive donations).

[4] Fishman, supra at 623 (noting that Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire constitutionally protected charities). 

[5] Fishman, supra at 631-32; see also Christine Roemhildt Moore, Comment, Religious Tax Exemption and The “Charitable Scrutiny” Test, 15 Reg. U. L. Rev. 295, 299 (2002-2003) (noting that most new states had an established state church, which took over the former role of the Church of England as an organ of the state, and that, after disestablishment from the state, tax exemption continued as a matter of course).

[6] See Fishman, supra at 632-33.

[7] See Witte, supra at 385; Brody, supra at 906-07; Nina J. Crimm, A Case Study of a Private Foundation’s Governance and Self-Interested Fiduciaries Calls for Further Regulation, 50 Emory L.J. 1093, 1099 (2001); Fishman, at 631 n.70 (noting that corporate charters were granted to only 355 businesses during the eighteenth century).

[8] See Fishman, supra at 634; see also Brody, at 909 (noting that a few state statutes still constrict the ability to devise to, or the holdings of, charitable corporations).

[9] See Lars G. Gustafsson, The Definition of “Charitable” for Federal Income Tax Purposes: Defrocking the Old and Suggesting Some New Fundamental Assumptions, 33 Hous. L. Rev. 587, 609-610 (1996).

[10] Perin v. Carey, 65 U.S. 465, 494, 506 (1860).

[11] See Gustaffson, supra, at 610.

[12] For a historical summary of nineteenth century American policy regarding the ad hoc to infrequent granting of tax exemption for charitable institutions, see Diamond, supra at 12. For a description of colonial church exemptions and taxation of certain income producing properties, see Witte, supra at 372-74.

[13] See Diamond, supra at 8-9.

[14] See Id. at page 10; Witte., supra at 385-86.

[15] See Diamond, supra at 12.

[16] Id

[17] Chas. W. Eliot, The Exemption from Taxation of Church Property, and the Property of Educational, Literary and Charitable Institutions, Appendix to the Report of The Commissioners Appointed to Inquire into the Expediency of Revising or Amending the Laws Related to Taxation and Exemption Therefrom 367, 386 (1875) (stating that Harvard paid tax on its various business holdings in Boston, save one specifically exempted from tax in its Charter).

[18] See Witte, supra at 374-75.  The underpinnings of this public policy to exempt the church drew from the historical exemption justified by two causes.  Most states had an official church established by government as an organ of the state government, continuing the English tradition.  Id.   Second, the Churches acted as the community services center of most townships, thus providing the local government services that otherwise it should undertake.  See id. at 375.  This second justification foreshadowed the government benefit analysis employed by Dr. Eliot.  See infra Part VI(C).

[19] John W. Whitehead, Church/State Symposium Tax Exemption and Churches: A Historical And Constitutional Analysis, 22 Cumb. L. Rev. 521, 539-40 (1991-1992).

[20] Witte, supra at 381.

[21] Id. at 382.  This criticism of exemption, reiterated by President Ulysses Grant, most influenced the Walsh Commission’s perspective on industrialists’ foundations as well as that of the Reece Commission.  See infra Parts VIII, IX(D).

[22] See Diamond, supra at 14.  In 1873, James Parton countered this justification, alleging examples of such charitable institutions producing extraordinary income.  See infra Part VI.

[23] See Witte, supra at 381.

[24] Whitehead, supra at 540.  Dr. Eliot further enunciated the government benefit, also known as the tax subsidy, argument that the state ought to grant exemption for the charitable provision of public service.

[25] See Diamond, supra at 14.  In 1873, James Parton proffered a liberal argument of land distribution efficiency that could only be achieved through such unproductive property being seized and auctioned back into commerce.

[26] See Witte, supra at 382.

[27] See Whitehead, supra at 539-40.

Posted in Legal History, Tax Exempt Orgs, Taxation | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

England’s Historical Legislative Treatment of Charitable Institutions

Posted by William Byrnes on August 7, 2009


When asked to comment upon the various versions of health care reform bills that will soon be voted upon by Congress, I recalled quote by Russell Long, then Chair of the Finance Committee[1]:

         “When the Finance Committee began public hearings on the Tax Reform Act of 1969 I referred to the bill as ‘368 pages of bewildering complexity.’  It is now 585 pages  . . . .”

 This week I turn my blogticle to expiscate the eristic historical context of the tax advantaged treatment enjoyed by charitable institutions.  Why charitable institutions?  In the United States, charitable institutions are known as tax exempt ‘non-profits’ though some are profitable in the accounting sense.  By example, many hospitals, though profitable and even lucripetous, are granted by the federal and state revenue authorities tax exempt status as charities.  However, Congress has pretermitted any issues, and thus leverage, associated with the tax exempt status of health care providers in the various health care reform bills.

 England’s Historical Legislative Treatment of Charitable Institutions

In order to finance his reign, Henry VIII seized the Catholic Church’s and universities’ lands and with parliament enacted The Statute of Uses in 1536 and The Chantries Act in 1545.[2]  The Statute of Uses, in enacting the rule against perpetuities, terminated the situation that most English land, in order to escape feudal dues, was held from family generation to generation in dynastical, perpetual trusts owned by the Church.[3]  The Chantries Act provided for escheat of colleges’ possessions.[4]  The government established as an organ of itself with tax-exempt status by its sovereign nature the Church of England, replacing the Catholic Church.[5]

See-sawing in favor of charitable institutions, under Elizabeth I in 1597, parliament enacted a charitable corporation act that exempted specified institutions from government charges and the requirement of government consent when formed for the following purposes:

        to erect, found, and establish, one or more hospitals, maison de Dieu, abiding places, or houses of correction, . . . as well as for the finding, sustentation, and relief of the maimed, poor, needy or impotent people, as to set the poor to work, to have continuance forever, and from time to time place therein such head and members, and such number of poor as to him, his heirs and assigns should seem convenient.[6]

Furthering Elizabeth I’s charitable incorporation statute by suppressing the application of Henry’s Statute of Uses and its rule against perpetuities, four years later Parliament enacted the Statute of Charitable Uses, 1601, allowing real property transfers to perpetual charitable trusts.[7]  The Statute provided for exemption from the Statute of Uses for a transfer to a charity that provided:

        relief of aged, impotent and poor people, . . . maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers, schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities, . . . repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, sea-banks and highways, . . . education and preferment of orphans, . . . relief, stock or maintenance of houses of correction, . . . marriages of poor maids, . . . aid and help of young tradesman, handicraftsman and persons decayed, relief of prisoners, . . . aid of any poor inhabitants.[8]

However, during the late sixteenth century and seventeenth century, the Crown often piecemeal interfered with religious charitable trusts, either voiding the trust or employing cy pres to divert the trust assets to the Crown’s favored religion.[9]  Charitable institutions once again falling out of the Crown’s blanket favor, two hundred years after and in the same vein as the Statute of Uses, Parliament revived a specific anti-charity statute, The Mortmain Act, in 1736.[10]  The Mortmain Act of 1736 invalidated real property transfers to any charity mortis causa as well as inter vivos transfers made one year or less before death.[11]  Though this statute limiting the funding of charities remained English law until The Charities Act, 1960, Parliament modified it in 1891 to allow for exceptions for devised property not to be used for investment, thus endowment, purposes.[12]

Prof. William Byrnes (http://www.llmprogram.org


[1] 115 Cong. Rec. S14,944 (1969) (statement of The Hon. Russell B. Long), reprinted in 1969 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2391, 2490.

[2] Evelyn Brody, Charitable Endowments and the Democratization of Dynasty, 39 Ariz. L. Rev. 873, 901, 909-10, 911-13 (1997) Henry VIII was by no means the first king to dissolve monasteries. 

[3] Brody at 901.

[4] Brody at 912-13.

[5] See Christine Roemhildt Moore, Comment, Religious Tax Exemption and The “Charitable Scrutiny” Test, 15 Reg. U. L. Rev. 295, 298-99 (2002-2003).

[6] See James J. Fishman, The Development of Nonprofit Corporation Law and an Agenda for Reform, 34 Emory L.J. 617, n.65 (1985).

[7] Lars G. Gustafsson, The Definition of “Charitable” for Federal Income Tax Purposes: Defrocking the Old and Suggesting Some New Fundamental Assumptions, 33 Hous. L. Rev. 587, 605 (1996) (citing An Act to redress the Mis-employment of Lands, Goods, and Stocks of Money heretofore given to Charitable Uses, 1601, 43 Eliz., ch. 4 (Eng.)).

[8] Oliver A. Houck, With Charity For All, 93 Yale L.J. 1415, 1422 (1984) (quoting Charitable Uses Act, 1601, 43 Eliz., ch. 4).

[9] See Norman Alvey, From Charity to Oxfam: A Short History of Charity Legislation 10-11 (1995).

[10] See Gustafsson at 606, 649 n.62 (noting that Mortmain statutes had previously been enacted in England but the Statute of Charitable Uses substantively repealed them); see also Brody, at 903 (noting that Parliament’s sentiments for legislating the statute are uncertain, but may have been due to anticlerical feelings).

[11] Alvey at 11.

[12] Brody at 905 n.147 (noting that the statute was modified in 1891 to allow either the court or the Charity Commissioners to grant exception for a mortis causa real property transfer to charity as long as the property was to be used for charitable activity rather than for investment purposes).

Posted in Legal History, Tax Exempt Orgs, Taxation | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: