Bob Jones University v. Simon

Last updated

Bob Jones University v. Simon
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued January 7, 1974
Decided May 15, 1974
Full case nameBob Jones University v. Simon, Secretary of the Treasury, et al.
Citations416 U.S. 725 ( more )
94 S. Ct. 2038; 40 L. Ed. 2d 496
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Case history
PriorPreliminary injunction granted, Bob Jones University v. Connally, 341 F. Supp. 277 (D.S.C. 1971); reversed, 472 F.2d 903, rehearing denied, 476 F.2d 259 (4th Cir. 1973).
Subsequent Bob Jones University v. United States , 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
Holding
The Court held that Bob Jones University could not seek an injunction preventing the IRS from revoking its 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status, as the court was barred from issuing an injunction "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax" under the Anti-Injunction Act.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William O. Douglas  · William J. Brennan Jr.
Potter Stewart  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
Case opinions
MajorityPowell, joined by Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Rehnquist
ConcurrenceBlackmun (in result)
Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
Anti-Injunction Act

Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974), is a decision made by the Supreme Court of the United States holding that Bob Jones University, which had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the Internal Revenue Service for practicing "racially discriminatory admissions policies" towards African-Americans, could not sue for an injunction to prevent losing its tax-exempt status. [1] The question of Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status was ultimately resolved in Bob Jones University v. United States , in which the court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect discriminatory organizations from losing tax-exempt status. [2]

Contents

Background

Bob Jones University is devoted to the teaching of fundamentalist religious beliefs, one of which is that God intended that people of different races live separately and not intermarry. [1] [3] When the university was founded in 1927, it denied admission to black students. [1] The school began allowing unmarried blacks to enroll in 1975, but it forbade interracial dating or marriage. [4]

Until 1970, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) granted tax-exempt status to all private schools, regardless of their admissions policies. [5] [6] Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 lists organizations that qualify for tax-exempt status and includes those which are charitable, religious, or for educational purposes. [5] But a rise in the prevalence of Christian private schools in the 1960s and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 led the IRS to re-evaluate its policy. [4] [6] The IRS announced in 1970 that private schools with racially discriminatory admissions policies would no longer receive tax exemptions. [4] [7] The IRS then notified Bob Jones University of its intention to revoke the university's tax-exempt status because of the university's racially discriminatory admissions policy. [3] [1] As a result, the university would be subject to taxation and its donors would not be able to claim their gifts to the school as charitable deductions. [8]

Bob Jones University filed suit to block the IRS from revoking its tax-exempt status, alleging "irreparable injury in the form of substantial federal income tax liability." [1] In 1971, the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina granted a preliminary injunction, [9] but in 1973 the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that decision. [10] The Court of Appeals relied on the Anti-Injunction Act, which states that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court." [11] A party cannot stop the government from collecting taxes. [11] Instead, in order to protect the Government's need to assess and collect taxes efficiently, the proper procedure is for the party to pay the disputed tax and then file an action for refund. [11] [12]

The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari to determine whether the Anti-Injunction Act barred Bob Jones University's suit to enjoin the IRS from revoking its tax-exempt status. [13]

Before the Supreme Court

The case of Bob Jones University v. Simon was presided over by Chief Justice Warren Burger and Associate Justices William O. Douglas, William J. Brennan, Jr., Potter Stewart, Byron R. White, Thurgood Marshall, Harry A. Blackmun, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., and William H. Rehnquist. [14] [15]

Arguing on behalf of Bob Jones University was John D. "J.D." Todd Jr., a lawyer from Greenville, South Carolina, who served on the South Carolina Bar Board of Governors. [16] The United States Treasury was represented by Assistant Attorney General Scott P. Crampton, with Solicitor General Robert Bork accompanying on the brief. [1]

Todd argued that Bob Jones University had met all the requirements of 501(c)(3) as set forth by Congress but had its 501(c)(3) status revoked by the IRS nonetheless. [17] Inclusion on the list of tax-exempt organizations was essential to receive donations from foundations and individuals, and Bob Jones argued that removal from this list constituted irreparable harm to the university. [15] Todd claimed that "the lower court held that the [IRS] Commissioner exceeded the statutory authority given him, that he has authority to promulgate regulations but not to change law, and that that's a matter for Congress to decide, and we of course contend that that's absolutely correct." [17] He also argued that Bob Jones University was not seeking an injunction on the collection of taxes resulting from the loss of tax-exempt status, but rather sought only an injunction on the removal of the university from the IRS list of registered 501(c)(3)s. [17] This argument suggested that the case "involved taxes only very remotely" and was therefore not covered by the Anti-Injunction Act, which would bar Federal Courts from preventing the collection of any taxes by the IRS. [17] Lastly, Todd contended that revocation of tax-exempt status by the IRS was an attempt to regulate the admissions policies of private universities, and not an effort motivated by protecting tax revenue. [15]

On behalf of the Treasury, Crampton argued that Bob Jones would owe $1.25 million in income taxes and saw their actions as "taxpayers trying to stop the assessment of tax." [17]

Supreme Court decision

US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell - Wrote the opinion of this case US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell - 1976 official portrait.jpg
US Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell - Wrote the opinion of this case

Bob Jones University v. Simon was decided May 15, 1974 in an 8-1 decision with majority opinion written by Lewis F. Powell, Jr., in which Justice Burger, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, and Rehnquist joined. Justice Blackmun filed an opinion concurring in the result of the Court's decision. Justice Douglas took no part in the decision of this case. [2] The Court held that the Anti-Injunction Act of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 USC § 7421(a), prohibited the university from obtaining judicial review by way of injunctive action. The Court further upheld that the Court of Appeals did not err in "holding that § 7421(a) deprived the District Court of jurisdiction to the issue of injunctive relief the petitioner sought." [18] Lastly, the Court admits to recognizing the "harsh regime" in which § 7421(a) has placed on §501 (c)(3) organizations threatened with loss of tax-exempt status and withdrawal of advanced assurance of deductibility of contributions. But, the Court stated that "this matter is for Congress, which is the appropriate body to weigh the relevant, policy-laden considerations, such as the harshness of the present law." [1] [2]

Within Section I of the Court's opinion the Court sought to detail the provisions which outlined the requirements needed in order for an organization to be exempt from the taxes and receive tax-deductibles as stated in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, specifically Section 501(c)(3). [19]

Additionally under the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, for organizations that had their 501(c)(3) status revoked, a provision allowed for litigation concerning the legality of the IRS's action after the assessment and attempted collection of taxes. [20] A legal suit could also be brought forward in a federal District Court or in the Court of Claims following the collection of any federal tax and the denial of a refund by the IRS. [20]

The court made it explicit that the language of the Anti-Injunction Act mandates that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court." [21] Furthermore, the courts have interpreted the principle language of the act to serve as "the protection of the Government's need to assess and collect taxes as expeditiously as possible with a minimum of pre-enforcement judicial interference." [21] Organizations seeking injunctive relief against the Service of the proposed action "conflict directly with a congressional prohibition of such pre-enforcement tax suits. In force continuously since its enactment in 1867. [2] [20]

It was held that:

  1. operation of the Anti-Injunction Act could be avoided only if there was proof of both irreparable injury and certainty of success on the merits, a pre-enforcement injunction being permissible only if it was clear that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail; [22]
  2. the instant action was a suit "for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax" [1] under the Anti-Injunction Act, since (a) the plaintiff's allegations indicated that a primary purpose of the suit was to prevent the assessment and collection of income taxes from the plaintiff, [22] (b) even if the plaintiff would owe no federal income taxes because of possible deductions for depreciation of plant and equipment, the plaintiff would still be liable for federal social security and unemployment taxes, which taxes were also contemplated by the Anti-Injunction Act, [22] and (c) in any event, the plaintiff sought to restrain the collection of taxes from its donors by forcing the Internal Revenue Service to continue to provide advance assurance that contributions to the plaintiff would be tax-deductible, thereby reducing the donors' tax liability, which aspect was also covered by the Anti-Injunction Act even though the plaintiff sought to lower the taxes of persons other than itself; [22]
  3. the Anti-Injunction Act was not rendered inapplicable on the ground that the Service's actions constituted an attempt to regulate the admissions policies of private universities rather than an effort to protect the government's tax revenues, since there was no showing that the Service's position did not represent a good-faith effort to enforce technical requirements of the tax laws; [22]
  4. application of the Anti- Injunction Act did not deny due process of law to the plaintiff because of any irreparable injury it would suffer pending resort to alternative procedures for review whereby the plaintiff could obtain Tax Court review of any assessment for income taxes or alternatively could institute a refund suit after payment of income, social security, or unemployment taxes, since such alternative procedures offered the plaintiff a full, even though delayed, opportunity to litigate the legality of the Service's actions; [22]
  5. the Anti-Injunction Act barred the instant action since the plaintiff's contentions as to violations of its constitutional rights were sufficiently debatable so as to foreclose the necessary determination that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail. [22]

Concurring opinion

US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, concurred on the opinion of the Court US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, detail.jpg
US Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, concurred on the opinion of the Court

Justice Blackmun concurring on the result of the Court:

Justice Blackmun expressed the view that the purpose of the suit was to restrain "the assessment and collection" of a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act, since an injunction, if granted, would directly prevent the collection of income taxes from the plaintiff, and the action was barred since it had not been shown that under no circumstances could the government ultimately prevail. [23]

Impact/reception

Following the trial, the Internal Revenue Service clarified its anti-discrimination guidelines for public and church-operated private schools. [4] [24] In order to gain tax-exempt status, private schools were required to publicize their non-discrimination policies for selecting students and employees. [24] Student loans and scholarships were to be allotted on a non-discriminatory basis. [24] Schools must not only fulfill the requirements, but also report the racial composition of their student body and staff as well as how loans and scholarships were distributed. [24] Although protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, church-operated private schools cannot abstain from Federal public policies against racial discrimination if they are to receive tax-exempt status. [25]

On January 19, 1976, the IRS revoked Bob Jones University's tax-exempt status. [26] Subsequently, the university paid the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) tax of $21 on one of its employees for that year in order to not come under the purview of the Anti-Injunction Act. [4] After being denied a refund, the university proceeded to sue the IRS for revoking its tax-exempt status. [4] The United States government filed for a counterclaim of $498,675.59 for unpaid federal unemployment taxes for the years 1971 to 1975. [27]

At the time, the school had already begun changing its admission policy by extending admission to unmarried blacks (married black people had already been admitted in 1971). [4] However, interracial dating and interracial marriage remained strictly prohibited by the university. [28] The IRS refused to reinstate the university's tax-exempt status, arguing that the dating policies violated its nondiscriminatory requirements. [29] The US District Court for the District of South Carolina ordered the IRS to restore the university's tax-exempt status on the grounds that the IRS policies violated the Free Exercise and Establishment Clause. In 1980, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in a split decision, determined that the dating policy, even if founded on religious conviction, violated its nondiscriminatory public policy. [29] The request for a refund was dismissed and the government's counterclaim was reinstated. Bob Jones University proceeded to appeal the decision and the Supreme Court would determine the verdict in Bob Jones University v. United States . [29] [30]

Role in subsequent decisions

Bob Jones University v. Simon has been cited in multiple cases in the Court of Appeals and Supreme Court since its 1974 ruling. The exceptions to the Anti-Injunction Act laid out in Bob Jones University v. Simon have been followed in several cases, notably in its "companion case" Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc. [31] In Alexander, the Supreme Court considered the exemptions in determining that a non-profit organization's suit against the IRS based on constitutional claims would not continue under the Anti-Injunction Act. [32] The rulings in Bob Jones University v. Simon and Alexander are considered a stricter reading of the Anti-Injunction Act for limiting the kinds of suits allowed to proceed before the enforcement of taxation by the IRS. [32]

Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon has also been cited and distinguished in the decisions of other cases. In Security and Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp Ltd. as considered by the District Court for the Southern District of New York, the use of liens by the IRS were considered to be too different from the facts of Bob Jones University v. Simon for application of the earlier ruling without careful consideration. [33] When the case came before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the exceptions put forth by Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon were used in part to determine the case. [34]

More recently, Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon has been cited and considered in a suite of cases concerning the legislation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. [35] In cases such as Commonwealth ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius and Halbig v. Sebelius, injunctions against the IRS in regards to tax policies related to the Affordable Care Act were not granted by the District Courts. [36] [37] In the lower court rulings of Thomas More Law Center v. Obama and Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius, the Anti-Injunction Act was found to be not applicable in either case. [38] [39] In the Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius , the Court requested arguments to be made concerning the Anti-Injunction Act and its possible application to the Affordable Care Act by an outside attorney, as neither the government nor the plaintiffs wished to argue its potential implications. [40] In each of these cases the Anti-Injunction Act was not applied primarily due to the use of the term 'penalties' in the language of the Affordable Care Act, which the language of the Anti-Injunction Act does not explicitly cover. [41]

Partial overruling and criticism

In the 1984 ruling of South Carolina v. Regan , Justice William Brennan delivered the Supreme Court's opinion detailing that the Anti-Injunction Act could not be used to prevent a legal suit if there did not exist a judicial process through which a plaintiff could make their case. [42] This occurred due to the state of South Carolina lacking a direct method of challenging the removal of bearer bonds. [43] The ruling therefore expanded on the instances in which the Anti-Injunction Act was not applicable, beyond the two exceptions set out by Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon and the earlier court case Enochs v. Williams Packing Co. , and thus partially overruling Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon with the modifications to the use of the Anti-Injunction Act concerning future suits. [44]

Several cases have also criticized the criteria for exemption as discussed in Bob Jones University v. Simon. In the dissenting opinion of Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc., Justice Harry Blackmun argued that the use of the Anti-Injunction Act to prevent suits based on constitutional arguments until after the IRS had acted disrupted the "system of checks and balances provided by judicial review." [45]

Another such case is that of Kahn v. United States, [46] in which the Third Circuit Court of Appeals considered the three criteria test provided by Mathews v. Eldridge to determine whether a lawsuit should be allowed to be litigated before policy enforcement by the IRS, even if a suit could be brought afterwards. [47] The three criteria test is considered by some legal scholars to be valid in any case concerning the application of due process, including those of taxation. [48]

Related Research Articles

Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that the religion clauses of the First Amendment did not prohibit the Internal Revenue Service from revoking the tax exempt status of a religious university whose practices are contrary to a compelling government public policy, such as eradicating racial discrimination.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Americans United for Separation of Church and State</span> American nonprofit organization

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that advocates for the disassociation of religion and religious organizations from government. The separation of church and state in the United States is sometimes interpreted to be provided in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737 (1984), was a United States Supreme Court case that determined that citizens do not have standing to sue a federal government agency based on the influence that the agency's determinations might have on third parties.

A 501(c) organization is a nonprofit organization in the federal law of the United States according to Internal Revenue Code and is one of over 29 types of nonprofit organizations exempt from some federal income taxes. Sections 503 through 505 set out the requirements for obtaining such exemptions. Many states refer to Section 501(c) for definitions of organizations exempt from state taxation as well. 501(c) organizations can receive unlimited contributions from individuals, corporations, and unions.

The Tax Anti-Injunction Act, currently codified at 26 U.S.C. § 7421, is a United States federal law originally enacted in 1867. The statute provides that with 14 specified exceptions, "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed".

A 501(c)(3) organization is a United States corporation, trust, unincorporated association or other type of organization exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of Title 26 of the United States Code. It is one of the 29 types of 501(c) nonprofit organizations in the US.

We the People Foundation for Constitutional Education, Inc. also known as We the People Foundation is a non-profit education and research organization in Queensbury, New York with the declared mission "to protect and defend individual Rights as guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States." It was founded by Robert L. Schulz. At the U.S. Department of Justice, he is known as a "high-profile tax protester". The Southern Poverty Law Center asserts that Schulz is the head of the leading organization in the tax protester movement. The organization formally served a petition for redress of grievances regarding income tax upon the United States government in November 2002. In July 2004, it filed a lawsuit in an unsuccessful attempt to force the government to address the petition. The organization has also served petitions relating to other issues since then.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Form 990</span> United States Internal Revenue Service form

Form 990 is a United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS) form that provides the public with information about a nonprofit organization. It is also used by government agencies to prevent organizations from abusing their tax-exempt status. Some nonprofits, such as hospitals and other healthcare organizations, have more comprehensive reporting requirements.

Coit v. Green, 404 U.S. 997 (1971), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court affirmed a decision that a private school which practiced racial discrimination could not be eligible for a tax exemption.

Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986), was a United States Supreme Court case involving a challenge to Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act of 1982.

Regan v. Taxation with Representation of Washington, 461 U.S. 540 (1983), was a case in which the United States Supreme Court upheld lobbying restrictions imposed on tax-exempt non-profit corporations.

Nonpartisanism in the United States is organized under United States Internal Revenue Code that qualifies certain non-profit organizations for tax-exempt status because they refrain from engaging in certain political activities prohibited for them. The designation "nonpartisan" usually reflects a claim made by organizations about themselves, or by commentators, and not an official category per American law. Rather, certain types of nonprofit organizations are under varying requirements to refrain from election-related political activities, or may be taxed to the extent they engage in electoral politics, so the word affirms a legal requirement. In this context, "nonpartisan" means that the organization, by US tax law, is prohibited from supporting or opposing political candidates, parties, and in some cases other votes like propositions, directly or indirectly, but does not mean that the organization cannot take positions on political issues.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012), is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in which the Court upheld Congress's power to enact most provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), commonly called Obamacare, and the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), including a requirement for most Americans to pay a penalty for forgoing health insurance by 2014. The Acts represented a major set of changes to the American health care system that had been the subject of highly contentious debate, largely divided on political party lines.

Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), there have been numerous actions in federal courts to challenge the constitutionality of the legislation. They include challenges by states against the ACA, reactions from legal experts with respect to its constitutionality, several federal court rulings on the ACA's constitutionality, the final ruling on the constitutionality of the legislation by the U.S. Supreme Court in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, and notable subsequent lawsuits challenging the ACA. The Supreme Court upheld ACA for a third time in a June 2021 decision.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">IRS targeting controversy</span> Questions of scrutiny based on political themes

In 2013, the United States Internal Revenue Service (IRS), under the Obama administration, revealed that it had selected political groups applying for tax-exempt status for intensive scrutiny based on their names or political themes. This led to wide condemnation of the agency and triggered several investigations, including a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) criminal probe ordered by United States Attorney General Eric Holder. Conservatives claimed that they were specifically targeted by the IRS, but an exhaustive report released by the Treasury Department's Inspector General in 2017 found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.

King v. Burwell, 576 U.S. 473 (2015), was a 6–3 decision by the Supreme Court of the United States interpreting provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Court's decision upheld, as consistent with the statute, the outlay of premium tax credits to qualifying persons in all states, both those with exchanges established directly by a state, and those otherwise established by the Department of Health and Human Services.

<i>Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services</i> US Court of Appeals case

Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services was a lawsuit filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation as a constitutional challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). The plaintiffs claimed that the ACA's enactment violated the Origination Clause of the Constitution. The suit was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The plaintiffs sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined to hear an appeal.

A 501(h) election or Conable election is a procedure in United States tax law that allows a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization to participate in lobbying limited only by the financial expenditure on that lobbying, regardless of its overall extent. This allows organizations taking the 501(h) election to potentially perform a large amount of lobbying if it is done using volunteer labor or through inexpensive means. The 501(h) election is available to most types of 501(c)(3) organizations that are not churches or private foundations. It was introduced by Representative Barber Conable as part of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 and codified as 26 U.S.C. § 501(h), and the corresponding Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulations were finalized in 1990.

Linchpins of Liberty v. United States (1:13-cv-00777) is a case decided in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in which the IRS agreed to a formal apology to all plaintiffs of the case. The IRS targeting groups based on a political viewpoint received widespread national attention.

Coffey v. State Educational Finance Commission (1969) was a federal case that addressed state support of segregation academies in Mississippi. More broadly, it established the standards the Internal Revenue Service would use to determine the tax-exempt status of private schools based on their segregation policies.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 (1974).
  2. 1 2 3 4 Bob Jones University v. United States , 461 U.S. 574 (1983).
  3. 1 2 Galvin, Charles O.; Devins, Neal (1983). "Tax Policy Analysis of Bob Jones University v. U.S." (Paper 379). WM.edu. Faculty Publications, William & Mary.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Johnson, Olati (2010). "The Story of Bob Jones University v. United States: Race, Religion, and Congress' Extraordinary Acquiescence". Columbia Public Law & Legal Theory Working Papers. Archived from the original (Paper 9184) on April 23, 2014.
  5. 1 2 26 U.S.C.   § 501.
  6. 1 2 Cassidy, Margaret K. "Income Taxation: Denial of Tax Exempt Status for Racially Discriminatory Schools" (PDF). Akron Law Review . University of Akron. Retrieved April 7, 2014.
  7. ↑ "7 STAND FED TAX REP. (CCH) #6970 (1970)" (Press release). Internal Revenue Service. July 10, 1970.
  8. ↑ Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. at 727.
  9. ↑ Bob Jones University v. Connally, 341F. Supp.277 ( D.S.C. 1971).
  10. ↑ Bob Jones University v. Connally, 472F.2d903 , 907( 4th Cir. 1973).
  11. 1 2 3 "26 U.S. Code § 7421 - Prohibition of Suits to Restrain Assessment or Collection". Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Law School. Retrieved April 6, 2014.
  12. ↑ Olson, Nina E. (2011). "Constitutional Due Process In Tax Collection". Gpsolo. 28 (2): 42–46.
  13. ↑ Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. at 734.
  14. ↑ "Burger Court 1972-1975". oyez.org. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  15. 1 2 3 Bob Jones University, Petitioner, v. William E. Simon, Secretary of Treasury, et al., 416U.S.725 .
  16. ↑ "John D. 'J.D.' Todd Jr". law.sc.edu. University of South Carolina Law School. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  17. 1 2 3 4 5 "Bob Jones University v. Simon: Oral Argument and Opinion Announcement". oyez.org. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  18. ↑ Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. at 749.
  19. ↑ "Exemption Requirements Section-501(c)(3)". IRS.gov. Retrieved April 6, 2014.
  20. 1 2 3 Bob Jones Univ. v. Simon, 416 U.S. 725 at 731.
  21. 1 2 Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416U.S.725 , 736(US Supreme Court1974).
  22. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416 U.S. at 736–48.
  23. ↑ Bob Jones University v. Simon, 416U.S.725 , 750(US Supreme Court1974). Concurring Opinion of Justice Harry Blackmun
  24. 1 2 3 4 "Rev. Proc. 75-50, 1975-2 C. B. 587" (PDF). IRS.gov. Internal Revenue Service, US Department of the Treasury.
  25. ↑ "Rev. Rul. 75-231, 1975-1 C.B. 158" (PDF). IRS.gov. Internal Revenue Service, US Department of the Treasury.
  26. ↑ Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. at 581.
  27. ↑ Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. at 582.
  28. ↑ Connell, Christopher (November 24, 1982). "Uniqueness Caused Bob Jones University to Lose Tax Status" (Editorial). The Times-News. Vol. 107, no. 260. Hendersonville, North Carolina. Associated Press. p. 10. Retrieved March 25, 2014– via Google News Archive.
  29. 1 2 3 Hanna, Stanley J. (1983). "Bob Jones University v. United States: Interpretation and Conclusions". Journal of Education Finance . University of Illinois Press. 9 (2): 235–40.
  30. ↑ "The Bomb and Its Fallout: Bob Jones University V. United States" (PDF). Greenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University. 1983 – via bju.typepad.com.
  31. ↑ Alexander v. "Americans United" Inc., 416 U.S. 752, 766 (1974).
  32. 1 2 Freund, Paul A. (2005). "The Supreme Court, 1973 Term". Harvard Law Review . 88 (1): 220–224.
  33. ↑ Security and Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp Ltd.,138F. Supp. 2d512, 523( United States District Court for the Southern District of New York 2001).
  34. ↑ Security and Exchange Commission v. Credit Bancorp Ltd., 297F.3d127 , 141( United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit 2002).
  35. ↑ "Defending the Affordable Care Act". justice.gov. US Dept. of Justice. Archived from the original on April 12, 2014.
  36. ↑ Commonwealth ex rel. Cuccinelli v. Sebelius. 728 F. Supp. 2d 768. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division. 2010. p.790.
  37. ↑ Halbig v. Sebelius. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4853. United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 2014. p.64.
  38. ↑ Thomas More Law Center v. Obama ,651F.3d529, 540( 6th Cir. 2011).
  39. ↑ Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Sebelius. 723 F.3d 1114. United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. 2013. p.1159.
  40. ↑ Liptak, Adam (March 25, 2012). "In Health Care Case, Lawyers Train for 3-Day Marathon". The New York Times.
  41. ↑ Cushman, Barry (2013). "NFIB v. Sebelius and the Transformation of the Taxing Power". Notre Dame Law Review . 89 (1): 166.
  42. ↑ South Carolina v. Regan, 465U.S.367 , 382(US Supreme Court1984).
  43. ↑ South Carolina v. Regan, 465U.S.367 , 401(US Supreme Court1984).
  44. ↑ Stephan, Paul B. III (1984). "Nontaxpayer Litigation of Income Tax Disputes". Yale Law and Policy Review . 3 (1): 76–77.
  45. ↑ Dragna, Jim (1976). "Environmental Organizations and Legislative Activity Restrictions: The 'Substantial' Deterrent to Environmental Protection". Natural Resources Lawyer . 9 (4): 691.
  46. ↑ Kahn v. United States,753F.2d1208, 1220(US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit1985).
  47. ↑ Kahn v. United States,753F.2d1208, 1219(US Court of Appeals, Third Circuit1985).
  48. ↑ Pitsker, Nimrod (2007). "Due Process for All: Applying Eldridge to Require Appointed Counsel for Asylum Seekers". California Law Review . 95 (1): 171.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.