This Essay analyzes the tax treatment of carried interests in private equity. It argues that there are two competing analogies: service income and investment income. Standard approaches are not able to resolve which of the competing analogies is better and often fail even to recognize that there are competing analogies. The best method for determining the proper treatment of carried interests is through direct examination of the effects of each of the possible treatments, known as the theory of line drawing in the tax law. Using this approach, it is clear that the better treatment of holders of carried interests is as investors. Key pieces of evidence include the longstanding policy premises behind partnership taxation and the complexity and avoidance problems with attempts to tax carried interests as service income. In particular, the longstanding policy behind partnership taxation is to tax partners as if they engaged in partnership activity directly. Current law, which gives carried interests holders capital gain follows this approach, and changing the law to tax carried interests as service income would require rejection of this historical trend. Because such an approach would mean taxing carried interests differently than if the partners engaged in the activity directly, it would be easily avoidable. Moreover, attempts to tax carried interest as service income will have to be able to distinguish service income from other types of income, a task which has proven to be difficult, complex, and avoidable.
Essay
From Langdell to Law and Economics: Two Conceptions of Stare Decisis in Contract Law and Theory
In his classic monograph, The Death of Contract, Grant Gilmore argued that Christopher Columbus Langdell, Oliver Wendell Holmes, and Samuel Williston trumped up the legal credentials for their classical bargain theory of contract law. Gilmore’s analysis has been subjected to extensive criticism, but its specific, sustained, and fundamental charge that the bargain theory was based on a fraudulent misrepresentation of precedential authority has never been questioned. In this Essay, I argue that Gilmore’s case against the classical theorists rests on the suppressed premise that the precedential authority of cases resides in the express judicial reasoning used to decide them. In contrast, I argue that the classical theorists implicitly presuppose that the precedential authority of cases consists in the best theory that explains their outcomes, even if that theory is inconsistent with the case’s express judicial reasoning. The classical view of precedential authority completely defuses Gilmore’s charge of fraud. In Gilmore’s view, merely demonstrating the inconsistency between the proposition for which the classical theorists cited a case and the express reasoning in that case suffices as proof of misrepresentation. But in the classical theorists’ view, the express reasoning in a case is simply a theory of its precedential authority, which, like any theory, can be wrong. Thus, the classical theorists simply reject Gilmore’s claim that a case cannot properly be cited for a proposition inconsistent with its express reasoning. The real dispute, then, between Gilmore and the classical theorists is over the nature of precedential authority and not the content of contract law.
Having reframed the classic death-of-contract debate, I then trace these competing conceptions of precedential authority through the major schools of contemporary contract theory. I argue that a contract theory’s embrace of one view instead of the other can be explained by the relative priority it accords to each of the two components in a conception of adjudicative legitimacy. A conception of adjudicative legitimacy consists in a theory of what it means for a decision to be based on law and a theory of what is required for law to be justified. I explain why theories according priority to the former tend to subscribe to the precedents-as-outcomes view, while theories according priority to the latter tend to favor the express reasoning view. The Essay concludes by arguing that the economic analysis of contract law subscribes to the precedents-as-outcomes view and therefore is the contemporary jurisprudential successor to the late 19th century classical theorists.
The Case for For-Profit Charities
Nonprofit firms may earn profits, but they may not distribute them to any affiliated persons. If a nonprofit firm has a “charitable” purpose under § 501(c)(3) of the tax code, the firm receives numerous tax advantages. For example, donors may deduct their donations to the firm from their taxable personal income. For-profit firms may distribute profits to affiliated persons, but receives no tax advantages for engaging in “charitable” activities. We argue that the law should not link tax benefits to corporate form in this way. There may be good arguments for recognizing the nonprofit form and good arguments for providing tax subsidies to charitable firms, but there is no good argument for making those tax subsidies available only to charities that adopt the nonprofit form. Indeed, there are reasons to think the ability to distribute profits to affiliates may both increase and improve charitable activities. Moreover, the extensive charitable activities of many for-profit commercial firms suggest that in the absence of discriminatory tax treatment for-profit charities would flourish. Therefore, the current tax benefits offered to charitable nonprofits should be extended to for-profit charities, and to the charitable activities of for-profit commercial firms.